Google This is a digital copy of a book that was preserved for generations on library shelves before it was carefully scanned by Google as part of a project to make the world's books discoverable online. It has survived long enough for the copyright to expire and the book to enter the public domain. A public domain book is one that was never subject to copyright or whose legal copyright term has expired. Whether a book is in the public domain may vary country to country. Public domain books are our gateways to the past, representing a wealth of history, culture and knowledge that's often difficult to discover. Marks, notations and other maiginalia present in the original volume will appear in this file - a reminder of this book's long journey from the publisher to a library and finally to you. Usage guidelines Google is proud to partner with libraries to digitize public domain materials and make them widely accessible. Public domain books belong to the public and we are merely their custodians. Nevertheless, this work is expensive, so in order to keep providing tliis resource, we liave taken steps to prevent abuse by commercial parties, including placing technical restrictions on automated querying. We also ask that you: + Make non-commercial use of the files We designed Google Book Search for use by individuals, and we request that you use these files for personal, non-commercial purposes. + Refrain fiOm automated querying Do not send automated queries of any sort to Google's system: If you are conducting research on machine translation, optical character recognition or other areas where access to a large amount of text is helpful, please contact us. We encourage the use of public domain materials for these purposes and may be able to help. + Maintain attributionThe Google "watermark" you see on each file is essential for in forming people about this project and helping them find additional materials through Google Book Search. Please do not remove it. + Keep it legal Whatever your use, remember that you are responsible for ensuring that what you are doing is legal. Do not assume that just because we believe a book is in the public domain for users in the United States, that the work is also in the public domain for users in other countries. Whether a book is still in copyright varies from country to country, and we can't offer guidance on whether any specific use of any specific book is allowed. Please do not assume that a book's appearance in Google Book Search means it can be used in any manner anywhere in the world. Copyright infringement liabili^ can be quite severe. About Google Book Search Google's mission is to organize the world's information and to make it universally accessible and useful. Google Book Search helps readers discover the world's books while helping authors and publishers reach new audiences. You can search through the full text of this book on the web at |http: //books .google .com/I 1 ^r^ Xanivei-8(ts of IPenns^rvania ψ 1 '■ ^^|. 1 Η Philology and Literature J ■ ΪΗΗ SOLiKtHS ()(•■ PLUTARCH'S ... il Η I.IFK OF CICERO 11 ^^K^ H^^^ Γ _Ii''^l ^^^^^^B«< * „^^^^^^ ^_ jl ϊ?αη]ΠΓϊι CoUrar liliratg Ί publications υΚ THE Xllnivereit^ of Ipenne^lvania SERIES IN Philology and Literature VOL. VIII NO. 2 THE SOURCES OF PLUTARCH'S LIFE OF CICERO BY ALFRED GUDEMAN Sometime Associate Professor of Classical Philology University of Pennsylvania Published for the University PHILADELPHIA j 1902 GiNN & Company, Selling Agents, 29 Beacon Street, Boston, Mass. 1 k % -c; / \ ^ . •-' . -■.•." I; '. - TO MY FRIEND AND COLLEAGUE Professor CHARLES E. BENNETT OF CORNELL UNIVERSITY THIS MONOGRAPH IS GRATEFULLY DEDICATED THE SOURCES OF PLUTARCH'S LIFE OF CICERO^ I. The results of source investigations have but rarely met with an acquiescence at all commensurate with the labor, the acumen, and the learning so often expended upon them. This is due to several causes. In the first place, the entire or partial loss of the original or earlier authorities naturally gives a more or less wide latitude to the constructive imagi- nation, and, in consequence, different conclusions are often drawn from the same concrete material. In the second place, any one who has even superficially examined the contributions in the field of source research must needs have observed that scholars have, with few laudable exception^ failed to ascertain at the very outset, as far as this is still possible, 1 Bibliography : Heeren, De fontibus etc. Plutarchi^ Gottingen, 1820, pp. 184-187 ; J. G. Lagus, Plutarchus vitae Ciceronis scriptor^ Helsingfors, 1846; Linker, Emendationen zu Sallust in Wiener Akad, vol. XIII (1854) pp. 266 ff. ; H. Klapp, De vitarum Plutarchi auctoribus Romanise Bonn, 1862 ; G. S. Sibinga, De Plutarchi in vita Ciceronis fontibus etc. (c. 1-23), Leiden Diss. 1863 ; H. Peter, Die Quellen Plutarchs in den Biographien der Romer^ Halle, 1865, pp. 129-135; Weizsacker, Cicero's υπόμνημα u. Plut. in Fleck. Jahrb. CXI (1875) pp. 417 ff . ; DUbi, Die jUngeren Quellen der Catil. Verse hworungy ibid. CXIII (1876) pp. 851 ff. ; G. Thouret, De Cicy Asin.y . . . rerum Caesar. scriptoribuSf Leipz. Diss. 1877 (= Leipz. Stud. I pp. 313 ff.); Schliephacke, Ueber die griech. Quellen der Catil. Verschworungy Goslar, 1877 ; J. Besser, De Coniurat. Catil. ^ Leipz. Diss. 1880; Ch. Graux, Introd. to his edition of Dem. and Cic, Paris, 188 1 ; E. Schmidt, De Cic. commentario . . . a Plutarcho . . . expressOf Jena Diss. 1884; ia.Plut.^s Bericht iiber die Catil. Verse hworung^ Liibeck, 1885 ; Thiaucourt, Mtude sur la Conjuration de Cat. de Sall.^ Paris, 1887 ; K. Buresch, Die Quellen zu den vorhand. Ber. iiber die Catil. Ver- schworung in Comment, in honorem Ribbeckii^ 1888, pp. 217 ff . ; Gudeman, A New Source in Plutarch's Life of Cicero in Transactions Amer. Philol. Assoc. vol. XX (1889) pp. 139-158 (cited as Transact.)^ Willrich, De Coniurat. Catil. fontibus^ Gottingen Diss. 1893 ; Felke, De Sallustii Catilina^ Munster Diss. 1894*; E. Schwartz, Bericht iiber die Catilin. Ver schworung in Hermes vol. XXXII (1897) pp. 554-609 ; F. Leo, Die Griech.-Rom. Biographic etc., 1901, pp. 162-165. I 2 SOURCES OF PLUTARCH'S LIFE OF CICERO what authorities were accessible to the later writer, as well as the extent to which he would be likely to have utilized all the available material — a problem which can only be solved, if , soluble at all, by a thorough examination of the working method, as it is revealed in the writings of the particular author under investigation. But even where these conditions have been complied with, a practice has been all but univer- sally followed which in my judgment must be held primarily responsible for the many failures met with in this field of philological study. I refer to the constant practice of at once assuming direct indebtedness on the score of more or less striking coincidences^ whether in form or substance or both, the very probable contingency being too often lost sight of that such parallelisms may have been unavoidable, the similarity of the subject-matter naturally leading to simi- larity in its stylistic presentation, or that they had passed more or less intact through intermediary channels, or, finally, that two writers were independently indebted to a third source common -ioT both. Unfortunately we are rarely in a position to determine with anything like satisfactory accuracy the real condition of affairs, but there is, at least, one criterion which almost invariably enables us to state dogmatically, if not what actually did happen, at all events what did not. It is a principle which, so far as my observation goes, has hitherto been ignored in source investigations. I have elsewhere had occasion to dwell upon this,^ but its prime importance for the present study may justify my formulating it again : Mere coincidence or similitude of statement with some earlier author^ be it 7iever so striking when taken by itself, not only affoi'ds no reliable clue to direct indebted- ness, but actually renders such an assumption freque?itly impossible^ in case there be found to exist side by side equally noteworthy divergences or co7itradictions, '^ Cp. Transact. Amer. Philol. Assoc, vol. XXXI (1900) p. 95 f . ; Introd. to Tac. Germ,, p. L. SOURCES OF PLUTARCH'S LIFE OF CICERO 3 It will thus be apparent that the only method that can yield acceptable results will consist in a process of elimination^ i.e. we must endeavor to determine what predecessors, from -tmfe the list possibly accessible, an author could not, for one reason or another, have consulted. It will then be, in many cases, comparatively easy to decide to what extent he .probably util- ized the authorities still remaining, provided, of course, that their character, purpose, and scope are satisfactorily ascertainable. II. If we apply these general methodological principles to an investigation into the Sources of Plutarch's Life of Cicero, our first task would naturally be to acquire an adequate conception of his biographical method ^ in regard to the faithfulness or freedom with which he followed still extant authorities 2 and to his habits of citing or suppressing his sources of information. Finally, as we are here dealing with the biography of a Roman, the question also arises whether Plutarch was sufficiently conversant with Latin to enable him to make an intelligent use of the Latin works, so indispensable to a satisfactory treatment of the career of the great orator. That the answer can only be a strong affirmative has been shown elsewhere.^ As regards the other problems a careful and unbiased examination yields the following conclusions : The extent of Plutarch's indebtedness to his Roman prede- cessors is largely conditioned by their number, their char- acter, their exhaustiveness, and their accessibility. It must, ^ Cp. H. Peter, Die Quellen Plutarchs etc. pp. 1-4; Wachsmuth, Einleit. in das Stud. d. alt. Gesch. s.n. : B. Perrin, Plutarch's Themistocles and Aristides^ New York, 1901, pp. 1-20 ; Leo I.e. pp. 155 £f. 2 Especially instructive in this connection is his life of Coriolanus, for which the narrative of Dionysiusof Halicarnassus constituted almost the only source. Cf. Peter, Die Quellen etc. pp. 7-17. 8 Cp. Transact, p. 140 £f. and the useful but far from exhaustive discussion of Sickinger, De linguae Latinae apud Plutarchum reliquiis et vestigiis^ Freiburg Diss. 1883. W. Vornefeld, De scriptorum Latinorum locis a Plutarcho citatis^ Munster Diss. 1901, is superficial and worthless. The famous statement in Plut. Dent. c. 3 (see Appendix III) merely signifies that he did not feel com- petent to institute a comparison between Demosthenes and Cicero as orators. Cp. Klapp I.e. p. 3 and Peter, Die Quellen etc. p. 61. 4 SOURCES OF PLUTARCH'S LIFE OF CICERO therefore, be determined for each biography independently. On the other hand, Plutarch, following the all but universal prac- tice of ancient historians, did not feel called upon to ransack the primary and often widely scattered sources, in case this laborious task had already been satisfactorily performed by others.* That this had been done for the life and career of Cicero before Plutarch became his biographer can admit of no doubt. He was, therefore, relieved of the necessity of con- sulting a great variety of authors who wrote in what was to him after all a foreign, albeit not an unfamiliar language. But quite apart from this consideration, an extensive Latin library was certainly not accessible to him in his small native towTi which, as he tells us with touching local pride, he did not care to desert, lest it grow less by even one inhabitant. This assumption is, indeed, confirmed by his own words in Dem, 2,^ which must have been written with special reference to the biography of Cicero y for the following reasons : In the first place, this complaint would have been unjustified, if he had taken advantage of his residence in Rome to acquaint himself fully with the extensive literature on Cicero at his disposal or had taken pains to collect such traditions con- cerning him as still survived in the imperial city. In the second place, in composing the life of Demosthenes he was not in the predicament of which he speaks, for all the sources were written in Greek, and the orations, in particular, must have long been familiar to him. The proximity of Athens, moreover, rendered these sources easy of access, and his opportunities for acquiring hearsay information were, to judge from his associations, unquestionably abundant.^ Again, Plutarch conforms to the usage of ancient historiog- raphy in habitually suppressing the authorities whom he most * Cp. H. Peter, Die geschichtl. Literat. etc. II, pp. 191 f . ; Leo I.e. p. 162. ^ See Appendix III. β It will not therefore appear accidental that the biography of Cicero contains no such phrases as Dem. c. 31, rhv μ^ν οΰρ Αημοσθέρους άτ^χβίί, Σόστίβ, βίον έξ ων ή /tACts &νέ^νωμ€ν η διηκούσαμ€ν. SOURCES OF PLUTARCH'S LIFE OF CICERO 5 extensively followedJ Where he does cite them, it is gener- ally with reference to minor details, or because of discrepan- cies in the traditional records which he did not care or was unable to reconcile. In such cases, he often quotes the account of some noted author which differed from the one accepted by him, and allows the reader to make his own inferences as to their respective validity. The paucity of sources, finally, which we must postulate at all events for Plutarch's Roman Lives, involves the necessary corollary that he did not constantly pass from one to the other, but that he would follow one guide for continuous stretches at a time, digressions or εμβλήματα being usually labeled as such by a \&γ€ταί or some similar phrase. III. Now of the writings which dealt, directly or indirectly, incidentally or exclusively, with the career of Cicero and which were still extant in the days of Plutarch, the following list will probably be found to be fairly exhaustive ; for it is unlikely that important sources of information existed of which no trace has survived.* I. Cicero, a. *'Y7rojLtviy/jta t^s ύττατίΐας.^ *Epistula ad Pompeium,^ *Poem de consulatu^ in 3 books (Urania, Minerva, Calliope).' *Poem de temporibus suis^* in 3 books. *De consiliis suisJ" * Those marked with an asterisk have not come down to us. ■^ Thus, to mention at least one indubitable instance, the name of Dionysius occurs but once in the Compar. Ale. et Cor. 2, never in the Camillus^ and yet both the Coriolanus (see above p. 3 2) and the biography of the latter are based upon the account in the Archaeology. 1 Cp. ad Alt. I. 19, 10; 20, 6; II. i, i ; Plut. Caes. 8 ; Crass. 13 ; Dio Cass. XLVI. 21. 2 Schol. Bob. p. 270 non mediocris ad instar voluminis scripta ; pro Sull. 24, 67. Perhaps identical in contents with the Greek memoir. 8 Cic. de div. I. 17-22. * ad Quint, frat. III. i, 24 ; ad /am. I. 9, 23. δ Cp. Ascon. Ped. p. 831 Or.; Charisius G. L. I. 146; Boethius de inst. mus. I. I. It is admittedly identical with the ανέκδοτα, and is frequently 6 SOURCES OF PLUTARCH'S LIFE OF CICERO b. Brutus (esp. c. 89, 305-92, 316). c. Epistles. d. Orations. II. a. *Tiro, de vita Cicero nis — *de iocis Ciceronis. b. *C. Trebonius, de facete dictis Ciceronis. c. *Corn. Nepos, de vita Ciceronis. d. *T. Pomponius Atticus, IIcpi Κικ€ρωνο9 ύττατει'ας.^ *Herodes, Περί Κικίρωνος ΰττατειας.^* III. a. Political Pamphlets'^ '. e.g. *Antonius, Προς τους Φιλιττ- τΓίκους άναγραφαί (Cic. C. 41)» b. Rhetorical Exercises : Ps. Sallustii Invectiva in Ciceronem — [Latro ?] Declamatio in Catilinam — Suasoriae and Controversiae ^ and perhaps the Z>e petitione consulatus, attributed to Q. Cicero. IV. a. Sallust's Catiline. b. *Livy (esp. books 91-120). c. *Asinius Pollio, Bella Civil ia. d. *Tanusius Geminus, Historia; *M. Bibulus, Edicta; *C. Curio, Orationesj *M. Actorius Naso.° mentioned by Cicero himself, e.g. ad Att, II. 6, 2; XIV. 17, 6. It is alluded to in Plut. Crass. 13, tv tipi Χίτγφ . . . ovtos μέν 6 λόγοί έξ€δ6θη μ€τά. ttjp άμφοιρ (sc. Crassus and Caesar) reXevT^Vf and perhaps Cic. 20, 24• g. ^ν ττνθέσθαί, πννθάνομαί: c 1,3 — c. 49» 3• h. α μ€ν ονν α^ία μνημηζ των ττερί . . . ΚίΚ€ρωνος ίστορου/χ€νων cis τ^ν ημετέραν άφΐκται γνώσιν^ ταντ* €στιν : Comp. Deni, et Cic, c. ι, 22 f. i. τα βίβΧια. τίΚ€^)των κατέπλησε και τα συγγράμματα των εγκωμίων: c 24ϊ 3 — ως €κ των συγγραμμάτων λαβείν €στι: c 24? ίο — ετταινων, ols πολλαχου χρ^ται περί του άνδρ^ίς: C. 24)21 — Ιστι δ€ τΐ5 και του ηθουζ iv tois λόγοι? ίκατύρου ^toif/is: Comp, Dem» et Cic, i, 5. j.• Tiv€s . . . €πίφύονται . . . άμνημονουσι: c. 24, 18. 24. . των ό€ κατ αυτόν €νόοςων . . . ουκ Ιστιν ουό€ΐ9, ον ουκ €ποίησ€ν Ιν^οζότερον η Χέγων η γράφων €υμ€νως wepl ίκάστου: c 24, 24 ίϊ• — ττολλα /xcv Καισαρι γράφων: c 37» S^• IV. This preliminary discussion will, I hope, have paved the way for a detailed examination into the sources of the information contained in Plutarch's Life of Cicero, but, before I proceed to this analysis, I deem it expedient to survey, as briefly as possible, the results at which previous investigators have arrived, particularly as my own conclusions will be found to differ so materially from those which have hitherto been more or less generally accepted. While opinions .have naturally varied as to the precise extent of Plutarch's indebtedness to the several authorities who, in the conviction of scholars, had 'been consulted by the biographer, substantial unanimity seems to exist as regards the following points : Plutarch, we are assured, unquestion- ably read and utilized Cicero's ύττό μνήμα τής ύττατβ/α?, the Letters and Speeches (of the latter particularly the Catiliniany the PhilippicSy and the pro Plancio)^ and the autobiographical chapters of the Brutus, ΙΟ SOURCES OF PLUTARCH'S LIFE OF CICERO Finally, it is generally held that he was under deep obliga- tions to Sallust's Catiline and to Tiro's de vita Ciceronis and de iocis Ciceronis. These confident allegations, however, rest upon no founda- tion. Plutarch, as I hope to demonstrate in the following pages, did not consult for the purpose of this biography a single work of Cicero's nor Sallust's monograph nor Tiro nor Livy. While this part of my analysis is strictly negative in character, I shall also show that Plutarch's biography con- tains a very considerable amount of information of post-Livian or post- Augustan origin and that one of the principal sources for these portions was none other than Suetonius's Life of Cicero, V*. To begin with the works expressly cited by Plutarch, for these quotations must naturally create the impression of having been secured at first hand,^ we may first take up the Letters of Cicero, Now the mere presumption that Plutarch had been acquainted with this unique and inexhaustible thesaurus of historical and autobiographical information at once puts us on the horns of a dilemma : if he was, he must either have read the entire correspondence (which, as may be observed in passing, was probably double the size of our extant collection ^ ) and then have culled from it, like a modern Dru- mann, what appeared relevant to his purpose, or else he did not consult any part of it at first hand. That the latter is the only acceptable alternative can be easily shown. In the first place, Plutarch on his own statement had not the leisure, and, as I have also pointed out above, he could not have had the disposition, to ransack so vast a store- house for his materials, not to mention that the ancients, with the possible exception of Suetonius,^ utterly failed to realize ^ Particularly such expressions as we find in c. 24, (τχεδόν . . . μία καΧ Bevr^pa . . . iv dpyy τινι y^ypawrai 37 τά μέρ οΰν iv rats ^irorroXats yey ραμμένα τοιαΰτά έστιν. 2 We possess in all 864 letters, of which 774 are written by Cicero himself. 8 The extensive use which he makes of these Letters is all the more note- worthy, because the subjects of his extant writings would not naturally nor SOURCES OF PLUTARCH'S LIFE OF CICERO II • the incomparable value of these contemporary documents.* Finally, even if we were to grant, on the strength of the direct and indirect allusions to these Letters, that Plutarch perused only a part of them, the capriciousness of the selec- tion no less than the comparatively trivial information which such reading yielded would still remain quite inexplicable. But if these general considerations should not prove convincing, positive evidence that the biographer never read the Corre- spondence of Cicero will be furnished by c. 37. We are there told that Trebatius wrote to the orator that Caesar would be pleased with the support of Cicero, but if his advanced age should forbid an active participation, he might at least retire to Greece, remaining neutral throughout the impending struggle. Cicero, however, vexed that Caesar did not write to him a personal letter, replied in anger,^ saying that he would do nothing unworthy of his past career. Plutarch concludes with the clause τα μβν ουν ev ταΙ<ζ έτηστοΧαΙ^ ^ε^ραμμβνα τοιαύτα εστί. Now we still possess a letter of Cicero which seems to refer to this very incident ; but unless we gratui- tously assume that the allusion is based upon some letter now lost, it differs, in spite of a general agreement, in a number of details sufficiently significant to preclude Plutarch's perusal of the original.^ Thus, we find nothing in the Latin about often suggest the expediency of their consultation. We may, therefore, be reasonably certain that he exploited the Correspondence to the fullest extent in his Life of Cicero. Cp. also Mace, Essai sitr Suetone pp. 284-298 {Ciciron chez Suit one). * Cp. H. Peter, Der Brief in der rom. Liter atur^ 1901, p. 51. δ The Greek does not make it clear, whether the letter was sent to Caesar or to Trebatius. If the former is meant, the discrepancy pointed out above would be still greater. 6 ad. Att. VII. 17, 3 : Trebatius quidem scribit se ab illo . . . rogatum esse ut scriberet ad me iit essem ad urbem, nihil ei me gratius facere posse. Haec verbis plurimis. Intellexi ex dierum ratione, ut primum de discessu nostro Caesar audisset, laborare eum coepisse, ne omnes abessemus. . . . Illud admiror non ipsum ad me scripsisse (= θανμάσα$ δτι Καίσαρ αύτ05 ούκ ί^ραψ^ν) . . . rescripsi ad Trebatium — nam ad ipsum Caesarem qui mihi nihil scripsisset nolui (ά7Γ€κρίνατο Tpbs dpy^v !) — quam illud hoc tempore difficile esse . . . sin 12 SOURCES OF PLUTARCH'S LIFE OF CICERO Caesar's proposal of eventual neutrality, nothing which would justify the assertion that Cicero replied ττρος ορηην. Finally, the extant collection contains a number of letters which passed between these parties at this time, and they are all couched in friendly termsJ They throw considerable light upon the attitude of the two men toward each other, and yet we are asked to believe that Plutarch overlooked these altogether while he inaccurately reproduced the tenor of another ! V^ So much for the Letters} I pass on to the Speeches, In the detailed account of the Catilinian Conspiracy, the famous orations are expressly alluded to in four ^ places, coincidences with Plutarch's narrative are also numerous, and hence scholars have had no hesitation in ascribing a direct knowledge of them to the biographer. But if ever mere coincidences have proved to be worthless as evidence of direct indebtedness, it would be in this case, for the reason that this episode was certainly dealt with at greater or less length in all histories or biographies of Cicero, and hence the salient, well-established facts are related with substantial unanimity in Cicero, Sallust, Appian, Florus, and Dio, to mention only the extant accounts. It is in the arrangement of the subject- matter and in details that divergences are revealed,. and they are all incompatible with the assumption that Plutarch had carefully perused the original records. A few particularly significant illustrations will suffice : In Cic. in Cat, I. 4, 9, we read : reperti sunt duo equites Romani qui , . . me meo in lectulo interfecturos pollice- rentur . , , exclusi eos quos Catilina mane ad me salutatum miserat. Here no names are given, but in the pro Sulla 6, 1 8 one Cornelius is introduced as qui me in sedibus meis in conspectu uxoris meae ac liberorum meorum. trucidarety and bellum geretur, non deero officio nee dignitati meae, pueros ύπ€κθ^μενοί in Graeciam ((Js ουδέν άνάξιον irpa^ei των ΐΓ€ΊΓο\ιτ€υ μένων). 7 ad Att. IX. 6 a. 16 ; Χ. 8 b (ad Ciceronem) ; IX. 1 1 a (ad Caesarem). 1 For other evidence, see notes to the text (Appendix I). 2 c. 14. 16. 19. 21. SOURCES OF PLUTARCH'S LIFE OF CICERO 13 he also figures in Sail. Cat, 28, together with L. Vargunteius, a senator, as a would-be assassin of Cicero. Now in Plut. c. 16 two others, Cethegus and one Marcius, are mentioned as those who had been delegated for this murderous task ; he also knows the informant who warned Cicero and adds the absurd detail κωΧυθέντ^^ elaekdelv η^ανάκτουν καΐ κατεβόων iirl θνραί^^ ωστ€ νττοτττότβροί η€νέσθαι? Doubtless the names of these men were originally unknown, but subsequently suspicion fastened upon several conspirators, which gave rise to the variants in our extant accounts of the episode. Whether the correct one is found among them is indeterminable and immaterial, but there can be no question that neither Xh^ first speech against Catiline nor the pro Sulla could have been Plutarch's source, and, to anticipate the discussion below, Sallust is, at least for this particular item, also excluded. Again, in Cat, II. 2, 4, Cicero says moleste tuli quod ex urbe parum comitatus exierit, Utinam ille ontnes secutn copias eduxissety and this is confirmed by Sail. Cat, 32, cum paucis in Manliana castra profectus esty whereas Plutarch c. 16 reports /Ltera τριακοσίων οττΧοφόρωρ . . . ττρος τον MaWiov έχώρει, Cic. in Cat, III. 3, 6. 5, 10 speaks of a large number of daggers and swords having been found in the house of Cethegus, but Plut. c. 18 adds hemp and sulphur and that the weapons were all νβοθήκτους. According to in Cat, III. 4, 8, urbem ex omnibus partibus quern ad modum. descriptum distributumque eraty incendissent, Sallust Cat, 43 and Appian II. 3 mention twelve districts. Plut. c. 18, on the other hand, says 100 men were assigned to as many districts, and adds further details not found else- where, but ignores L. Cassius (in Cat, III. 6, 14; IV. 6, 13). ^ Appian's account (II. 3) is still more circumstantial and in flat contradic- tion with both Cicero and Plutarch. He says Lentulus and Cethegus intended to entice Cicero into taking an early morning walk and then by engaging him in conversation and thus drawing him away from his people to murder him. Dio Cass. 37, 32 mentions only Βύω rivas. 14 SOURCES OF PLUTARCH'S LIFE OF CICERO The story of Cicero's energetic measures to crush the con- ! spiracy in the bud, of his shrewd dealings with the Allobrogians, and of the exposure in the senate, so graphically told in Cat. \ III. 2, 4 ff., again differs in important details from the narra- ! tive in Plut. c. i8. We may conclude with one other exam- ! pie, though the list of discrepancies is by no means exhausted. ' When Plut. c. 2i says that Cicero after hearing Caesar's plea for clemency immediately ανάστα^ ένβγβίρησεν eh ίκάτβρον τα μεν rrj ττροτερα, τα Se rfj ^γνώμΎ) Ιίαίσαρος συνειττών^ οϊ re φίΧοί iravre^ οΐόμενοί τω Ί^ικέρωνι σνμφβρειν την Κ,αίσαρος '^νώμην etc., it must be evident that he never read Xh^foiwth speech against Catiline.'* A similar analysis of Plutarch's statements in c. I2 {de lege agi'aria)y c. 23 (where, e.g., Cato is said to have been the first ' to hail Cicero as pater patriae, whereas he himself* mentions Q. Catulus), his account of the trial of Roscius (c. 3),^ of ' Verres (c. 7 f.), of Milo and Murena (c. 35), can leave no doubt in any unprejudiced mind that the biographer had not con- sulted these speeches. Finally, even \\\^ pro Plancio must be m eliminated from the list of Plutarch's possible sources, although Cicero is expressly cited as his authority. The juxtaposition I and analysis of the two passages will make this clear : pro Plancio 26, 64 f. : Vere me hercule Plut. Cic. c. 6 : ctti tov- hoc dicam : Sic turn existimabam, nihil homi- Tot9 ovv /Aeya φροι/ων cis nes aliud Romae nisi de quaestura mea loqui '^ώμην βαδίζων ytkoXov τι . . . excogitati quidam erant a Siculis bono- παθύν φησιν. ^νντνχων res in me inauditi : itaque hac spe decede- γαρ άνδ/οΐ των Ιττιφανων bam, ut mihi populum Romanum ultro omnia φιλώ Soicovvri wepl Κα/Αττα- delaturum putarem. At ego cum easu diebus viai/, ipiaOau^ τίνα δή των lis itineris faciendi causa decedens e pro- irvirpay^ivtuv vw αντον λα- vincia Puteolos forte venissem . . . concidi γον €χουσι * Ρω/Ααΐοι και τι * This view is also advocated by Sibinga I.e. p. 77, though he regards this oration as non-Ciceronian. ^ in Pis. 3, 6; fro Sextio 57, 121. Both of these speeches are full of biographical detail which Plutarch would not likely have ignored had he known them. And the same is true of many others in the Ciceronian collection. 6 Cf. Sibinga I.e. pp. 16-19, and notes to text. SOURCES OF PLUTARCH'S LIFE OF CICERO 15 paene, iudices, cum ex me quidam quaesis- set, quo die Roma exissem et num quid- nam novi. Cui cum respondissem me e provincia decedere, **Etiam me hercule," inquit, " ut opinor, ex Africa." Huic ego iam stomachans fastidiose ** Immo ex Sici- lia " inquam. Tum quidam quasi qui omnia sciret, "Quid tu nescis," inquit, "hunc quaestorem Syracusis fuisse?" . . . ea res, iudices, baud scio an plus mihi profuerit, quam si mihi tum essent omnes gratulati. Nam posteaquam sensi populi Romani aures hebetiores, oculos autem esse acres atque acutos, destiti quid de me audituri essent homines, cogitare ; feci ut postea cotidie praesentem me viderent, habitavi in oculis, pressi forum. φρονονσιν, ως ονόματος καΙ ^όζης Tojv πεπραγμένων αυτω την πόλιν αττασαν €μ- Ίτεπληκώς' τον δ' (Ιττύν *< Που γαρ ης, 2> Κικέρων, τότ€ τον γρόνον τοντον; '' μλν ουν έζαθυμησνΛ παντά- παχτιν, ύ καθάπτίρ ύς πέλα- γος άχαν€ς την πόλιν c/attc- σών 6 π€ρΙ αυτού λόγος ovSkv CIS 8όζαν έπί^ηλον π€ποίηκ€ν' νστ€ρον δέ λο- γιχτμον €avr

i /v*vx^^aXj συο U ^ixh, ση^ 6 Cp. Ps. Cic. ad Octavium, a rhetorical exercise of an early date : una cum istis vitam simul fugere decrevi. ■^ Cp. above p. 6^ and esp. the perfectly analogous conception underlying the advice given in Sen. Suas, VII. 3, fac moriendo Antonium nocentiorem ; 8, sine durare post te . . . perpetuam Antonii proscriptionem. 30 SOURCES OF PLUTARCH'S LIFE OF CICERO the following criteria will justify us in still further eliminating his vita Ciceronis in numerous other passages of the Greek biography, where scholars have nevertheless on general prin- ciples, it would seem, postulated an extensive indebtedness to it. Tiro, we contend, must be rejected as a direct source of Plutarch: (i) Wherever recorded items of information are distinctly unfavorable to Cicero ; and, if such occur within an otherwise homogeneous narrative, it will follow as a neces- sary corollary that the entire chapter is equally non-Tironian. (2) All paragraphs of importance which clearly contradict, or are iftconsistent with, the extant utterances of Cicero cannot possibly have emanated from the editor of his correspondence and speeches. (3) All details which manifestly betray, for one reason or another, a nonrcontemporary or post- Augustan origin, must naturally have been wanting in Tiroes vita Ciceronis, Now in applying these principles to the work under investi- gation I must again emphasize the necessity of keeping stead- fastly in mind that Plutarch cannot, on psychological grounds alone, have accumulated his biographical information by con- sulting one particular authority, only to abandon it at the next moment, then reverting to it in the succeeding para- graph, and so on with kaleidoscopic variation.^ The very first chapter furnishes a number of variants con- cerning Cicero's father (ouSev fjv ττνθβσθαί μετριον — οί μεν — οί he) which are mutually exclusive, one being unquestion- ably slanderous. Again, the reason given for the retention of the cognomen on the part of the first Cicero, and the refusal of his famous descendant to discard it in spite of the solicita- tion of his friends, absurdly imply that the Romans habitually regarded this appellative in the light of an opprobrious nick- name. Plutarch's explanation must, therefore, have origi- nated at a later time, when these cognomina had attracted 1 See above pp. 4. 21. SOURCES OF PLUTARCH'S LIFE OF CICERO 31 the attention of philologians,^ particularly as the alleged con- notation of the term is due to a false etymology.^ Chapter 2. The prediction of Cicero's future greatness, though clearly a vaticiniiim ex eventUy may have been recorded by Tiro as well as the detailed account of his career at school. The statement, however, that he was taken μέσον αυτών iiri τιμ^ casts some doubts upon this assumption, for a sim- ilar story is told by Nepos of Atticus, Cicero's fellow pupil.* In any case, Tiro cannot have been Plutarch's authority for the €ρρνη ιτως ττροθνμότερον iirl ττοιητικήν and for the esti- mate of Cicero's poetic productions. This paragraph, as well as the passage in c. 40, ttj he ττρο^ την ττοίησιν βύκοΧία τταίζων έγ^ρήτο, Aeyerai yap, οττηνίκα ρνείη ττρος το τοίοντον^ της νυκτός €7Γη ttolciv ττβντακόσια, is unquestionably post -Augustan,^ and in all probability the entire narrative was taken directly from Suetonius's νύα Ciceronis. Chapters 3-5, which are closely connected, deal with the life of the young Cicero up to the time of his quaestorship. They contain the following indisputable evidence of non- Tironian origin, although they are habitually attributed to this source. Not to lay stress upon the fact that Plutarch does not seem to have known that Cicero associated himself with both Mucii, the augur and the pontifex, the statement that he subsequently served under Sulla in the Marsian War is notoriously false, for according to Cicero himself^ he served under the consul Pompeius Strabo.*^ Again, we learn that 2 Cp. esp. Plut. Coriol. 1 1 ; Public. 1 1 ; Fab. Max. i. On the Roman use of cognomina designating bodily defects, cp. Η or. Sat. I. 3, 48 ff. 3 Cp. Plin. Nat. Hist. XVIII. 10, 3, iam Fabiorum, Lentulonim, Ciceronum ut quisque aliquod optime genus screret. * Nep. Att. I. This seems to have been a usual mark of honor. Cf. Plut. Cat. Min. 57 ; Ovid Fast. V. 67. ^ Cp. Transact, pp. 148-150. 6 Phil. XIL 11,27. ^ Perhaps we may• recognize in this error a deliberate attempt to bring the two great men into synchronistic association, Pompeius Strabo being too obscure and unimportant a figure. To cite only Roman analogies, cp. the 32 SOURCES OF PLUTARCH'S LIFE OF CICERO immediately on leaving school Cicero Φίλωνος rJKovae, whereas his first teacher was Phaedrus,® Philo not reaching Rome till after the death of Mucius, if the augur be meant. The account of the Roscian trial, to which we shall have occasion to refer again, is also full of errors which Tiro could not have committed. Chapter 4, on the philosophical and rhetorical studies of Cicero, has been analyzed above (p. 1 7) ; and the same con- siderations which proved Plutarch not to have been indebted to the Brutus apply with equal force to Tiro's biography. Chapter 5 is no less replete with errors and contradictions. That Tiro was well acquainted with the de divinatione, which contains a violent attack upon the Delphic oracle,^ goes with- out saying ; but if so, it is difficult to understand how he could have spoken of Cicero's visit to the shrine and of the answer of the priestess recorded by Plutarch. Following the advice of Apollo to keep aloof from politics, Cicero, we are told, lived in retirement for a while, his scholarly seclusion earning for him the nicknames of Greekling and pedant. This is also demonstrably erroneous, as Cicero immediately on his return from Asia (J^ B.C.) applied himself assiduously to forensic pleading,^^ being elected unanimously to the quaestorship the year following. Surely an invention so palpably apocry- phal — the chronological contradictions may well be attributed to Plutarch's notorious negligence in such matters — cannot have emanated from so trustworthy a source as Tiro. The anecdote of the impassioned acting of Aesopus, the alleged teacher of Cicero, is an irrelevant addition, its story of Sulla and the young Caesar (Suet. Caes, i), of Accius and Pacuvius, Caecilius and Terence. If so, all early contemporaneous authorities would here be excluded as possible sources for Plutarch's statement. 8 Cf. Cic. ad fam. XIII. i, 2, magis Phaedrus nobis cum pueri essemus, antequam Philonem cognovimus, ut philosophus . . . probabatur. MI. 56, 115. 10 Brut. 92, 318, Unum igitur annum cum rediissemus ex Asia, causas nobiles egimus cum quaesturam nos . . . peteret ; ad Att. IV. i6a, i. SOURCES OF PLUTARCH'S LIFE OF CICERO 33 digTjessional character being plainly indicated by ίστοροΰ<ην. That the story was still unknown to Cicero may be shown by a passage in the TusciiL DisputP- Finally, the remark at the end of the chapter, that Cicero by his excessive use of raillery and repartee '^oXKoxy; έΧύττει καΐ κακοηθβίας €\άμβαν€ Βόξαν, will certainly not be attributed to the author who carefully collected the dicta Ciceronis?^ Chapters 6-9, which bring the narrative down to the con- sulship of Cicero, are perhaps the most incoherent in the entire biography, being made up of anecdotes, witticisms, per- sonal characteristics, and historical items, some of which are open to serious objections. In at least two instancies a post-Augustan origin must be assumed, and in another we unexpectedly come upon a statement highly derogatory to the orator, although these chapters are otherwise extremely eulogistic. After relating the story of Cicero's quaestorship, which culminates in the anecdote discussed above, Plutarch speaks of his hero's efforts to win popularity and then suddenly tells us of his moderate means, adding that people marveled at his not accepting legal fees. Now the lex Cincia de donis et muneribuSy which forbade this, had, indeed, become virtually a dead letter even in Cicero's time ; ^^ but it does not seem likely that any contemporary writers would have expressed their astonishment that the orator had failed to violate an existing statute. This was, however, entirely natural after the time of Claudius, who repealed the old law and substituted 11 IV. 25, 55, oratorem vero irasci minime decet . . . num egisse umquam iratum Aesop um ? 12 Cp. also c. 27, TO 5*ois Ιίτυχ€ προσκρούαν ivcKa του yeKolov ιτόλύ avvTJyc μΧσο^ αύτφ 28 init., 4κ τούτων iyivero iroXXots έπαχθήί Comp. Dem, et Cic. i, ιτοΧΧαχοΟ TV σκωΐΓτικψ ^rpos τό βωμΛ\6χον 4κφ€ρ6μ£νοί etc. 18 Cp. the interesting passage in Verr. I. 13, 37, where Cicero deplores the fact that so salutary a measure was falling into desuetude and severely arraigns Hortensius and others for its open violation. It was again enforced by Augustus. Cf. Dio LIV. 18 and Ovid Am. I. 10, 39, turpe reos empta miseros defendere lingua. 34 SOURCES OF PLUTARCH'S LIFE OF CICERO definite fees, the maximum being fixed at 10,000 sesterces.^* The remark of Plutarch, as may be observed in passing, also proves that he did not consult the speeches against Verres, a fact confirmed by the conflicting statements regarding the * litis aestimatio,* ^^ the extremely low figure (750,000 sesterces) given by Plutarch being taken from some writer unfriendly to Cicero, as shown by the words which follow : ΒιαβοΧην €σχ€ν, ΰίς €7Γ αρηυρίω το τίμημα /€αθνφ€ίμ€νος, an accusation all the more remarkable as he repeatedly emphasizes the scrupulous honesty of Cicero in these very paragraphs and elsewhere, e.g. c. 36, Comp. Dem, et Cic, 3. The statement concerning the orator^s precarious health is contradicted by Plutarch him- self (c. 4) and by Asinius Pollio.^^ Again, the purchase of three villas and a house on the Palatine cannot, of course, be reconciled with the remark touching his modest means above referred to, but seems in some way directly associated with the bribery charge immediately preceding. The confusion and misrepresentation here pointed out would be unaccount- able had Plutarch in these chapters been following Tiro or any other contemporary biographer. This inference is still further confirmed by the observation that Cicero did not buy the house on the Palatine until after his consulship, ^"^ and above all by the use of ev "Αρττοίς, for which we should cer- tainly expect iv ^Αρττίνοις^ as Arpz is a town of Apulia, where Cicero possessed no estate. All editors, from Xylander to Graux, accordingly agree that Plutarch here blundered. They strangely, however, overlooked the following passage in Mar- tial, IV. 55, 3, Luci, gloria temporum tuorum Qui Gaium veterem Tagumque nostrum Arpis cedere non sin is disertisy '** Tac. Ann. XI. 6 f. ^^ Cp. Sibinga I.e. p. yj. le ap. Sen. Suas. VI. 24 ad senectutem prospera permansit valetudo, but Dio Cass. XXXVIII. 16 says exactly the opposite : τά 7άρ iroKKk ήρρώστα I 1"^ ad /am. V. 6, 2 ; ac/ Att. I. 16, 10. SOURCES OF PLUTARCH'S LIFE OF CICERO 35 an unmistakable allusion to Cicero. That the poet here com- mitted the very same error, ^^ is quite incredible. The only plausible explanation of this coincidence is to assume that Arpi was an abbreviated form of Arpinum in use in Domitian's time or possibly earlier, but it is quite unlikely that Plutarch found it in any Augustan or pre-Augustan author. The ninth chapter exemplifies by means of three illustra- tions the rigid integrity of Cicero as praetor. That these were not taken from a continuous narrative, such as Tiro's, but rather represent " clippings," is indicated by the introduc- tory Xe^eraij and by the virtually identical phrases at the beginning and the end of the Licinius anecdote, ^^ which have all the appearance of labels for collectanea or chapter headings in a commonplace book. This origin seems further strength- ened by the observation that the description of Ούατίρως as γριράίων he τον τράχ^ηΧον ιτερίττΧβως again occurs in c. 26 : 'Βατίνων βγρντα χοφά£ας ev τω τραχήΧω^ as if he had been here mentioned for the first time. That the two anecdotes in this chapter, the nineteen examples of wit and repartee which take up c. 25 and 26, and the batch of satirical sayings collected in c. 38 ultimately go back to one and the same source,^ such as the collections of Tiro or Trebonius, is generally believed ; but that Plutarch had himself consulted these is highly improbable,^^ as he might have taken them ^^ e.g. Friedlander ad loc. : " Arpis aus Versehen statt Arpinum, Cicero's Geburtsort, genannt " ! Other editors also fail to cite the Greek parallel. ^® ras KpLaeis ίίδοξ€ καθαρών καΐ καλω$ βραββΰσαι — τό δέ irpaypM τφ "Κίκέρωνι δόξαν rjveyKcv (as έ'ΠΊμέ\ω$ βραβεύσαντι τό δικαστήρων. ^ This seems clear from such phrases as ypάψω δ^ και τούτων όλί-γα (c. 27) and βίΚτιον δ^ καΐ τούτων όλί7Λ τταραθέσθαι. 21 Cp. Leo I.e. p. 164 : Die c. 24-27 kennzeichnen sich selbst deutlich als eine £inlage in den Zusammenhang der Erzahlung. . . . Es liegt nahe anzunehmen, dass der Stoff der Einlage aus Tiro's de iocis Ciceronis stamme, aber nicht wahrscheinlich ist es, dass Plutarch selbst ihn daher entnommen hat. Die ά,τΓοφθέ^μΛτα gehorten in die Biographie eines als witzig bekannten Mannes; Cicero's dicta brauchte man anderthalb Jahrhunderte nach seinem Tode wahrlich nicht an der Quelle suchen. Cp. note to text § 53I. 36 SOURCES OF PLUTARCH'S LIFE OF CICERO more conveniently from Suetonius^ or from one of the numerous compilations of άιτοφθβτγματα existing in his time. Cicero's conduct in the Manilian affair,^ with which the chapter closes, is related only in Plutarch and Dio (XXXVI. 44). According to Plutarch, Manilius was accused, in the prae- torship of Cicero, irepl κΧοττής.^ If this corresponds \.ofiirtuni or peculatiiSy the case would not have come under Cicero's jurisdiction at all, but under that of his colleague, C. Orchivius, Cicero having charge of matters de pectiniis repetundis?^ But even if the Greek could mean the latter, the difficulty would still not be removed, for Manilius had not at that time been the governor of a province. Again, when Plutarch says that in this alleged trial, irepX /cXottt}?, there was considerable oppo- sition to Manilius on the part of the nobility, we have an evident confusion with the lex Maniliana, so well known to us through Cicero's extant speech pro imperio Cn. Pontpei. This preceded the defense of Manilius, here spoken of, which was not undertaken until after his term of office had expired. It is impossible, therefore, that Plutarch was indebted for this paragraph to an early and trustworthy authority. The narrative of the Catilinian Conspiracy (c. 10-23) has, owing to the numerous extant accounts of this same episode, engaged the special attention of scholars who, though differing in details, have yet come to the unanimous conclusion that Plutarch here, if anywhere, drank deeply of the original foun- tains, making extensive use of Sallust and of Cicero's orations, his Greek Memoir, and the de consiliis suis. We have shown 22 To no Roman writer known to us is the airclpeiv δ\φ τφ θυλάκψ in the matter of bons mots so applicable as it is to him. 28 Sibinga I.e. p. 43 f. discusses the subject, but his conclusions are quite erroneous. 2* Dio I.e. does not state the nature of the charge (Skiys τέ nvos) and places it a/ier the praetorship, Cicero Cornel, fragm. i agrees as to the date with Plutarch, while Ascon. Υ^ά, pro Corn. p. 59, in a mutilated passage, says the charge was de vi. 26 Q^, pro Rab. Posth. 4, 9 ; pro Cluent. 53, 147 quid C. Orchivii peculatus, quid mea de pecuniis repetundis "i SOURCES OF PLUTARCH'S LIFE OF CICERO 37 that these assumptions are erroneous and that the entire story is not a mere mosaic of isolated facts pieced together capri- ciously from many sources, but is a consistent and coherent narrative, in spite of some unimportant chronological diver- gences, such as the enumeration of the Ciceronian speeches preceding the Catilinian,^^ and one undoubted ίμβλημα which gives a fanciful explanation of Sura, the cognomen of Lentulus (c. 17). But if so, the question at once arises, whether Tiro may not have been Plutarch's fons primarius, at least for this strictly historical portion. That his narrative was based upon a Latin authority may perhaps be inferred from the occurrence of an evident Latinism in c. 14 which seems to have escaped observation. It is the phrase του^ ιτραημάτων καίνων €φί€μ€νονς, which is 'exactly equivalent to the idiom novartim remm cupidus or rebus novis studere. . The expression is exceedingly common in Greek, but it seems to be always used with the comparative^ The only way to escape from the conclusion to which this remark- able departure from a well-established usage leads would be the assumption that the Latinism might have occurred in Cicero's 26 The " orationes consulares," according to Cic. ad Att, II. i, 3, followed in this order: Two speeches de lege agraria, de Othone^ pro Rabirio^ de proscripto- rum filiis. Plutarch merely omits the fourth, and puts the last of these in first place. As they all belong in one year, the error is not very serious. Again, when Cicero in 63 B.C. defended Otho's lex theatralis^ its author may well have been praetor (c. 13), although the law was passed in his tribune- ship, in 67 B.C. The fact, however, that he is called Marcus^ which was the praenomen of the emperor, instead of Lucius^ if not a slip of the pen on the part of Plutarch himself, would certainly point to a source later than the reign of Nero. 27 e.g. Herod. VII. 6 Ρ€ωτέρων epywv έττιθυμητής Xen. //ell. V. 2, 9 νεωτέ- ρων έ'ΐΓΐθνμοΰντ€$ πραΎμάτων^ and similarly ν€ωτ€ρΙζ€ΐν, The only exceptions which I have been able to find, in spite of a long and diligent search, occur in Dio Cass. XXX VII. 50, curiously enough also in the account of the Catilinian conspiracy : καινών aei ttotc tt ραμμάτων έττίθυμητά^^ and in Plut. Ant. 9 νέων Ίτρα-γμάτων o/w76/iews, but both these passages were undoubtedly based upon Latin authors and the former, iiv particular, is not suφrising in an author who exhibits so many Latinisms as Dio Cassius. 38 SOURCES OF PLUTARCH'S LIFE OF CICERO νττόμνημα τη^ νττατβίας, but this solution of the difficulty must be rejected on the strength of the following passage in Cic. ad. Att, I. 19, ID : conimentariiim consiilaijis met Graece compositum mist ad te^ in quo^ si quid crit quod homini Attico minus Graecum eruditumque videatiir^ non dico quod tibi . . . Lucicllus de suis historiis dixerat^ se quo facilius illas probaret Romani hominis esse idcirco barbara quaedani et σοΧοικα dis- pefsisse, Apud me si quid erit eiusmodi m.e imprudente erit et invito. It is not likely that the man whose cognomen was Atticus would have allowed the σόλοικου in question to pass unnoticed. The numerous differences between the Greek narrative and Cicero's speeches, and the distinctly derogatory remark in c. ig already discussed, are, in my judgment, as incom- patible with the assumption of direct indebtedness to Tiro's biography as we found them irreconcilable with a first-hand knowledge of Cicero's writings bearing upon this subject. The 24th chapter, which constitutes a sort of sequel to the preceding story, leading up to the long string of Ciceronian facetiae collected in c. 25-28, is perhaps the most instruc- tive βμβλημ,α in the entire biography, for in no other chapter is there such an ostentatious array of authorities, and yet nowhere is the second-hand character of the information more easily demonstrable. Plutarch begins by saying that Cicero's excessive self- laudation and the exaggerated, estimate which he, with nau- seating reiteration, placed upon the achievements of his con- sulship^ disgusted many and exposed him to attack. The fact is notorious and has found epigrammatic expression in Seneca.^ But that the effect here attributed to Cicero's self- praise, however repugnant it may have seemed to some later 28 Cp. also the still more emphatic censure of this failing in Comp, Dem. et Cic. c. 2. 29 de brev. vitae 5, i, quotiens ilium ipsum consulatum suum non sine causa sed sine fine laudatum detestatur. Dio Cass. XXXVIII. 12 expatiates on the subject with his usual anti-Ciceronian bias. SOURCES OF PLUTARCH'S LIFE OF CICERO 39 Romans, reflects any actual contemporary feeling, must be seriously questioned, in view of the entire lack of a modest self-restraint which the ancients habitually exhibit when speaking of their own achievements. Nay more, the very phrase which follows : τα βιβλία reXev- των κατ€7Γ\ησ€ καΐ τά συη^^ράμματα seems to me to reveal a later source, in that the juxtaposition of the two substantives would be intolerably tautological, unless we assume that the collocation was occasioned by the post-Augustan use of liber in the sense of oration συηηράμματα ^^ appropriately designat- ing the other scripta of Cicero. And, as a matter of fact, we find that of the numerous illustrations of Cicero's readiness to praise not only himself but others as well, which Plutarch introduces by the words ως Ικ των av^r^ ραμμάτων Χαββΐν ίστί, not one, so far as we can still make out, occurs in an oration. The phrase itself, of course, no more proves that Plutarch had himself laboriously selected all these examples from the works of Cicero^ than the statement of Tac. Germ, 5, est videre apud illos argent ea vasa, points to the author's personal presence in Germany. The same conclusion must be drawn from the confident and sweeping statements contained in the succeeding words of this same chapter : των he μ^ηάΚων καΐ θαυμαστών έτταίνων oh τΓολλαχον^ χρ^ταΑ irepl τού avSpd^ and again των Se κατ αύτον €ν8όξων . . . ov/c €στιν oihek, ο ν ουκ έττοίησεν ivSo^oTCpov η λβγωι/ ή ηράφων εύμβνώς irepl έκαστου. For if we were to accept the first on Plutarch's own responsibility, it would ^ Cp. my note to Tac. Dial. 3 (p. 70) and Landwehr in Archiv f. lat. Lexic, VII pp. 223-235. 31 It is the very term which Cicero himself used for his essays and dialogues. Cp. ad Att. XVI. 6, 4, ex eo (sc. volumine prooemiorum) eligere soleo, cum aliquod σύγγραμμα institui. ^ The words immediately following ττολλά ^*αύτοΰ καΐ άιτομνημον^ύουσιν (sc. οΐ trepl Κικέρωνοί yparf/avrcs) may, indeed, have been intentionally inserted here to forestall such an inference, for they are not necessary to the context. 23 Some twenty eulogistic references to Demosthenes occur in Cicero's extant writings^ and they are widely scattered at that. 40 SOURCES OF PLUTARCH'S LIFE OF CICERO involve an absolutely exhaustive knowledge of the opera omnia of Cicero, such as but few Romans could ever have boasted of, while the latter assertion would at the same time imply a most profound acquaintance with the posthumous reputation of the individuals in question, such as the Greek biographer cer- tainly did not possess. Nevertheless scholars have had no scruples in attributing all these items concerning Plato, Aristotle, Theophrastus, and Demosthenes, as well as the information based upon the letters to Herodes, Gorgias, Pelops, and the young Cicero, to Plutarch's perusal of the original passages, though some are not averse to accepting an intermediary source, such as Tiro, as a possible contingency. But that Plutarch was indebted for this learned digression to some later authority — the chapter reminds us of Suetonius at every turn — is made evident by the allusion to certain pedantic critics of Cicero,^ who took him to task for a dispar- aging remark concerning Demosthenes, fpund in his Letters, probably in one addressed to Calvus.^ Plutarch refutes these obtrectatores Ciceronis by reminding them that they forget to cite or intentionally ignore the μζηάΚοι καΐ θαυμαστοί eiratvoi oh ττολλαχοί) χρήται irepl του άν8ρός. Unless all signs fail, we possess in this defense a faint echo of the liter- ary controversies of later scholars, of which Aper's attack upon Cicero in the Tacitean Dialogus may furnish an illustra- tion. This seems to me at least to be a more reasonable sup- position than to assume that Tiro had taken occasion to free ^ Such as Didymus e.g., against whose attack upon Cicero, it will be remem- bered, Suetonius a hundred years later wrote a separate treatise. Cp. also Tac. Dm/, c. 12 plures hodie invenies qui Ciceronis gloriam . . . detrectent and my notes ad loc. (p. 1 53). ^ The reference seems to be to the lost correspondence of Cicero with Calvus and Brutus, cited by Quintilian and Tac. Dm/. 18, 21 f., where see my note p. 204. That the letter was addressed to Calvus I am inclined to infer from the vagueness of the allusion irpos τίνα των εταίρων ίθηκ€ν έν itriaToX^ 7pa^as, for if it had been written to the "well-known " Brutus, his biographer would probably have said so, as in c. 43. Calvus*s name occurs nowhere in Plutarch and was presumably unknown to him. SOURCES OF PLUTARCH'S LIFE OF CICERO 41 his hero of a charge, in reality too trivial and unjust to be dignified by serious refutation. Having already discussed the sources of c. 25-27, we may now turn to what may be called the Clodian Episode, in c. 28-35. It is the other long and continuous narrative which, together with the account of the Catilinian Conspir- acy, takes up one half of the entire biography. Here, as there, our sources of information are unusually full and varied, for, besides the works of Cicero, Appian ^ and, above all, Dio Cassius ^ have devoted considerable space to the narrative of these stirring times. To them we should add the more or less incidental discussions and references in Asconius Pedianus, Plutarch's Cato Min., Crassus^ Pompey, Caesar^ and Suetonius's Life of Caesar^ not to mention other more scattered allusions. Finally^ of accounts now no longer extant, those of Tiro and Livy were probably the most valuable and exhaustive. Plutarch's narrative, though full of details, is, with few exceptions to be noted presently, in remarkable agreement not only with the testimony of Cicero, but also with that of Dio, who, in the story of the Clodian episode, on the whole exhibits a sympathetic attitude toward the orator, in striking contrast with the almost Mommsenian hostility displayed toward him elsewhere in his history. This circumstance finds its only plausible explanation in the assumption that he did not hate Cicero less but Clodius more, and hence did not hesitate to base his account upon a writer who, though kindly disposed toward Cicero, appealed to him because of the exhaustive character of his treatment. Now Plutarch's account is no less eulogistic, and, in at least one instance, relating to Cicero's timid conduct in the Milonian affair (c. 35), clearly apologetic. This attitude, taken in connection ^ Bell. Civ. II. 14-16. 20-22. 87 XXXVII. 45 f. 51 ; XXXVIII. 10-17. 18-30 (Philiscus's speech to console the exiled Cicero); XXXIX. 6-1 1 (the return of Cicero). 13-24 (Clodiana); XL. 44-57 (Clodius and Milo). 42 SOURCES OF PLUTARCH'S LIFE OF CICERO with the unflattering role assigned to Terentia in c. 29 and 30, naturally suggests the probability that here at all events Tiro's biography was closely followed by Plutarch ; for even the one unqualified censure which he directs against the unmanly conduct of Cicero in exile (c. 32) would not militate against this assumption, inasmuch as the author of the Par- allel Lives may have designedly inserted so well-deserved a criticism,^ in order to point the contrast with the laudable demeanor of Demosthenes under similar circumstances.^ But the abundant evidence already adduced of Plutarch's independence of Tiro in cases where we should expect him to have been consulted above others, and the undoubtedly unhistorical statement that Terentia' s jealousy, caused by her husband's alleged relations with the notorious Clodia, eventu- ally led Cicero by way of exculpation to make an enemy of her equally profligate brother, a story which a Suetonius, we may be sure, would have seized upon with avidity — these considerations, I maintain, render Plutarch's indebtedness to Tiro for the Clodian episode far less plausible than it might seem on superficial analysis. But if any concrete confirma- tion of this view be thought necessary, it will be found in certain items dealing with Cicero's exile which either contra- dict the explicit testimony of Cicero or are objectionable on other grounds ; for I regard it as self-evident that Tiro could not have erred in matters of detail with which he must have been as familiar as his patron. Thus, we read in Plut. c. 32 that Cicero was forbidden to take shelter ei^ro? μιΧίων'^ ττ^ντακοσίων 'Ιταλία?, whereas we ^ Certain curious resemblances between Plutarch and Dio may show that while the consolatio of Philiscus is undoubtedly a rhetorical composition of Dio himself, many of its ideas were not of his own invention. ^^ Cp. also Comp. Dem. et Cic. 4. *o An evident Latinism, as may be observed in passing. Dio Cass. XXX VIII. 17, 6 practically agrees with Plutarch, when he says τρισχιλίουί re yap καΐ cirraKoaiovs καΐ wevr^KOvra σταδίου$ υπέρ τ^ρ 'Ρώμην ύπ€ρωρίσθη (= ultra CCCCI.XVIII millia passuum Roma exulare iussus est). SOURCES OF PLUTARCH'S LIFE OF CICERO 43 learn from Cic. ad Att. III. 4, in qua (sc. rogatione) erat eiusmodi ut mihi ultra quadringenta mi Ha liceret ^csse. Again the statement kv δ' Ίττιτωνίω, iroXei τη^ Αευκανία^, rjv Ούίβωνα νυν καΧοΰσιν, Ούίβίο<;^ Σίκέλος άνηρ, who had been greatly benefited by Cicero, οΙκία μέν ουκ έ^έξατο, when compared with ad Att, I.e. a Vibone . . . subito discessimus . . . statim iter Brundisium contuli . . . ne et Sicca] apud quern eranty periret, reveal an amazing confusion which cannot be accounted for satisfactorily, if Tiro was Plutarch's source, for the two passages unquestionably relate to the same inci- dent. In the first place, Vibo is a town of Bruttium, not of Lucania, and it was so called in Cicero's day. An individual Vibius, a Sicilian, nowhere occurs in Cicero's works ; on the other hand. Sicca, an old friend, had an estate at Vibo, and he received the exile kindly. Finally, it were passing curious, if one Vibius had lived in a town Vibo which, according to Plutarch's explicit albeit demonstrably erroneous informa- tion, had not at the time in question borne that name ! In all likelihood this Sicilian owes his existence to Vibo or one of its inflected forms being taken for the name of an individual. The description of Cicero's departure from Brundisium, his landing at Dyrrhachium, the portents which followed, their interpretation by ol μαντικό ί, whose opportune presence is as miraculous as the σημεία them- selves, — all these items not only constitute, as the Xeyerai indeed foreshadows, an βμβΧημα of different origin from the preceding, but, what is still more important, none of them are found in Cicero's itinerary as given in his Correspondence. The brief paragraph which follows (c. 36) deals with Cicero's proconsulship in Cilicia. It is written in a tone of panegyric, and with the exception of two statements, one of which is significantly introduced by Xeyerat, substantially coincides with the extant utterances of Cicero, the closing sentence making, indeed, the impression of a direct paraphrase 44 SOURCES OF PLUTARCH'S LIFE OF CICERO from one of his letters.*^ Still, as this was written from. Rome Jan. 4, 49, after Cicero had been on Italian soil again since Nov. 24, 50, it is incredible that Plutarch had capriciously selected a brief note to Tiro merely to borrow a metaphor, while he overlooked the earlier and more important letters to Atticus (e.g. VII. 4. 5), in which the writer with equal confidence predicts the Civil War. But if the second- or third-hand character of Plutarch's information needed any further confirmation, it would be furnished by the immediately preceding allusion to Cicero's facetious reply to the request of Caelius to send him some panthers ; for not only does the answer not strictly coincide with the Latin original,^ but, what is far more significant, the orator's well known corre- spondent is styled Caecilius}^ an amusing blunder which Plutarch cannot, of course, have found either in Cicero's letters or in Tiro, their editor. The brevity and incidental character of the narrative of the Civil War, from its beginning to the proscription of Cicero (c. 37-47), was naturally due to the fact that through- out this period Cicero, with the memorable exception of the last year of his life, was condemned to complete political inactivity or played but a subordinate role, Pompey, Caesar, Brutus, Antony, and finally Octavianus occupying simultane- ously or successively the center of the historical stage. The *^ c/s r^v πόΧΐρ ivavrjXeeVj ηδη των τραΎμάτων ωσΐΓ€ρ ύττό φ\€'/μονηί άφισταμένων έπΙ top έμφύΧιον π6\€μον = adfatn. XVI. ιι, 2 (addressed to Tiro) : ego ad urbem accessi . . . sed incidi in ipsatn flammani civilis discordiae vel potius belli. *2 Cp. Ύράφ€ΐ irpbs αυτόν ούκ elvai παρδά\€ΐί ivKiXiKiq^ ΊΓ€φ€υΎέναι^ά.ρ eli Καρίαρ αΎανακτούσα^ί δτι μ6ναι ττολεμοΟι^αι, πάντων είρήνην ^χ6ντων and Cic. ad fam. II. II, 2, de pantheris . . . agitur mandatu meo diligenter, sed mira paucitas est et eas quae sunt^ valde aiunt queri quod nihil cuiquam insidiarum in mea provincia nisi sibi fiat ; itaque constituisse dicuntur in Cariam ex nostra provincia decedere, sed tamen sedulo fit et in primis a Patisco. *8 That KciftXiou is not here, as occasionally elsewhere, e.g. Comp. Dem. et Cic. c. I, 14, a mere slip of the pen for KeX/ov or KatXiov, is made evident by the addition του ji-^Topos which clearly identifies him with the famous critic, a younger contemporary of Cicero. SOURCES OF PLUTARCH'S LIFE OF CICERO 45 fascinating story of the death struggle of the Republic was told by many illustrious writers whose material, after passing through various channels, found its way into Plutarch's Lives of the protagonists. Only the biographers of Cicero would, therefore, have had any motive or occasion to pay particu- lar attention to his part in the conflict which preceded the assassination of Caesar. Accordingly the chapters under notice are chiefly devoted to the man Cicero, to his personal traits and domestic affairs, only so much of the history of the times being given as was essential to an adequate under- standing of his conduct. Hence also the anecdotal and digressive character of these paragraphs, one entire chapter (c. 38) being taken up, as we have seen, with the witticisms of Cicero in Pompey's camp,^ favorable^ and unfavorable*^ criti- cisms standing amicably side by side. Some of these items are not found elsewhere in extant sources, a comparatively late origin being, moreover, highly probable in most of them. Thus the pleasant story (c. 40) — it is introduced by Xeyerai — of the effect of Cicero's eloquence upon Caesar in the case of Ligarius, told with circumstantiality of detail and in Plutarch's best style, is undoubtedly a later embellishment, as may be seen from a comparison with Cicero's own account ;*'^ for if Caesar's deep emotion had actually manifested itself in the manner related by Plutarch, the orator would hardly have confessed his inability to describe it. In the Greek, Caesar ** Cp. Cic. PAi/. II. 16, 39 ne de iocis quidem respondebo quibus me in cas- tris usum esse dixisti etc. *δ e.g. c. 39, 22 if . ; 45, 26 if. « e.g. c. 38, 32 f. ; 39, I ff. ; 41, I ff. ; 42, 8 if.; 43, 4 ff.; 45, 14 if. 12 ff.; 46, 17 ff. *'' ad /am. VI. 14, 2 (to Ligarius): non solum ex oratione Caesaris quae sane mollis et liber alts fuit, sed etiam ex oculis et vultu, ex multis praeterea signis quae facilius perspicere potui quam scribere, hac opinione discessi, ut mihi tua salus dubia non esset. It is hard for us moderns, who read the pro Ligario in cold print, to realize the emotional effect which it is said to have produced, for that it was a much admired oration is also confirmed by Cic. ad Ait. XIII. 12, 2. 19, 2. 46 SOURCES OF PLUTARCH'S LIFE OF CICERO had fully made up his mind in advance to condemn Ligarius at all hazards, in the Latin speech he is represented as having been amenable to the pleas of mercy from the start.^^ Again, when Plutarch says reXo^ δε των κατά ΦάρσαΧον άψαμβρου του ρήτορο^ ά^^ώνων έκτταθή 'γβνόμενον τυναγθηναι τω σώματι etc., neither he nor the author of the story can have had the extant speech before them, for the only direct allusion to the battle (which, at least to modern feeling, does not even rise to any great heights of pathos) occurs at the beginning rather than at the end ! ^^ Finally, τον yovv άνθρωττον cnrekvae τψ αίτιας βεβιασμβνος, unless interpreted as an acquittal on the spot, would spoil the effect of the anecdote ; and yet, according to Cicero, Caesar reserved his decision, though the advocate left the court room convinced of the ultimate triumph of his client. The determination of the sources in the closing chapters, which briefly touch upon events of the Civil, War, does not fall within the scope of this investigation, as it involves the far larger question concerning the authorities which Plutarch followed in his Lives of Caesar, Pompey, Antony, Brutus, and Cato Minor. The patient reader who has followed my analysis so far will, I hope, have carried away the conviction that all the evidence is strongly against the universal assumption of Plutarch's direct indebtedness to the numerous authorities belonging to the Ciceronian or early Augustan period ; that, in other words, neither the works of Cicero nor the Catiline of Sallust nor the biography of Tiro nor the history of Livy, to mention only the most important, furnished him, at first hand, with any of the material accumulated in his life of the orator. But the foregoing examination has at the same time *8 Cp. also ad fam. VI. 13, 2 (to Ligarius): non fore in te Caesarem duriorem, nam et res eum cotidie et dies et opinio liominum at, ut mihi videtur, etiam sua natura mitiorem facit. *® In § 9, tiiere being 37 in all. SOURCES OF PLUTARCH'S LIFE OF CICERO 47 given abundant positive proofs that numerous details must, for one reason or another, be assigned to a post-Augustan origin, a contingency which Sibinga had timidly suggested in one or two instances, while Leo and Schwartz both seem to imply that the authors whom they postulate as Plutarch's principal source belonged to the same period. X^ But however strong the foundation may be upon which, as I believe I have shown, the above conclusion is based, we cannot as yet rest satisfied with it. We must still inquire, whether it be not also possible to give to this post- Augustan authority of Plutarch " a local habitation and a name." If we carefully survey the passages in question, his charac- teristics will combine into the following picture : He was a scholar of exceptional erudition who had an exhaustive first- hand knowledge of the entire literature on his subject, who, though a warm admirer of Cicero, was impartial and objec- tive enough not to exclude such unfavorable criticisms of his hero as he met with in his sources. He was extremely fond of anecdotes, scandalous gossip, and *bons mots,' a firm believer in dreams and prodigies as premonitions of the future. Not over punctilious in matters chronological nor imbued with a desire to distinguish with scrupulous care the true and the false, he did not weigh the validity of conflicting evidence, everything being grist that came to his mill. Of a philological turn of mind, he had a predilection for certain details and loved to dwell upon the literary manifestations and intellectual char- acteristics of the individuals whose careers he had set himself to describe. Finally, he must have lived sufficiently far removed in time from Cicero to account on the one hand for the acciden- tal discoloration of many incidents in the orator's life and for the erroneous interpretation of many facts, the usual result of a dimmed historical perspective, and, on the other, to allow for the ivy-growth of biographical fiction, the inevitable penalty which great men pay to posterity for the boon of immortality. 48 SOURCES OF PLUTARCH'S LIFE OF CICERO Now there is unquestionably no known scholar of the imperial age who so perfectly fulfills all the above conditions, none whose method of work, no less than the character of whose information, would be more likely to have attracted the author who professed to write Lives not HistorieSy than Suetonius Tranquillus. And if we further add that he not only wrote a defense of the orator against an attack of Didymus,^ but also ^ Life of Cicero, the conclusion, that many of the items in Plutarch which have been shown to be post- Augustan were taken directly from this work of his con- temporary, will acquire a very high degree of probability. It will become all but certain, however, if we finally succeed in establishing this indebtedness, so far inferred on internal grounds alone, on the basis of a number of passages in other Latin authors indubitably taken from the Suetonian biography.^ ^ Cp. Amm. Marcell. XXII. i6, i6, Chalcentenis Didymus . . . qui in illis sex libris ubi nonnumquam imperfecte [locutum] Tullium reprehendit, sillo- graphos imitatus scriptores maledicos, iudicio doctarum aurium incusatur ut immania frementem. leonem putidulis vocibus canis catulus longius circumla- trans ; and Suidas s. v. Ύρ,οΤίκΰΚΚο^', irepl ttjs Κικ4ρωρο$ iroKireias βιβλίον^ά] * άντιΚέ- ycL δέ AtSiJ/ty. See also the discussion in Mace, Essai sur Suitone pp. 284-287. 2 See my paper in the Transact.^ esp. pp. 1 51-158. Its results have been accepted by Christ, Griech. Literati p. 652 note i ; 653, note 7, and Mace, Essai sur Suitone p. 244. 411. Other scholars who have had occasion to touch ηρκ)η the sources of Plutarch's Cicero have ignored the article. Willrich I.e. p. 36-38, though he devotes a chapter to Suetonius, remains, in consequence, in blissful ignorance of the true state of affairs, as do Leo and Schwartz (11. cc). Their conclusions, however, deserve quotation on other grounds. The former (p. 165) says : " Die Biographie ist einheitlich geatbeitet, von einem Manne angelegt der Tiro und wenigstens einen anderen Biographen Cicero's, Cicero's Memoiren und Briefe und, ausser anderem, historische Gewahrsmanner heranzog und seinen Standpunkt zwar auf der Cicero freundlichen Seite nahm, aber die Gegner zu Wort kommen liess und selbst tadelte. Plutarch war es gewiss nichtt nennen konnen wir ihn nichty^^ and Schwartz p. 602 : '* Der plutarchische Gewahrsmann war kein Politiker und kein Historiker grossen Stils, es war ein sehr belesener Pedant, der keine Lesefrucht umkommen liess und aus Gutem und Schlechtem, aus Sallust und Cicero, sowie aus der Pamphlet- und Klatsch- litteratur ein buntes Mosaik zusammenfugte, das bald werthvolles Detail, bald gleichgiltigen Kleinkram, bald giftiges Gerede zu einem seltsamen Bilde vereinigte." My own characterization above, though independently drawn SOURCES OF PLUTARCH'S LIFE OF CICERO 49 I refer, in particular, to the items on Roman Literature in St. Jerome s additions to the Chronicle of Eusebius and to the anonymous treatise de viris illustribuSy usually printed with the Caesares of S, Aurelius Victor and attributed in the majority of MSS. to Pliny the Younger, while the scholars of the Renaissance, chiefly it would seem misled by the title, identified it with its famous namesake.^ St. Jerome's obliga- tions to Suetonius are universally admitted, but it does not appear to have been noticed that, whatever the other sources of the de viris illustribus may have been,* its eighty-first chapter at all events, which deals with the life of Cicero, was also drawn from the same fountain, though, like the rest of the treatise, it has come down to us only in a horribly epit- omized form. I base this conviction not so much upon the identity of the titles or even upon the circumstance that Suetonius's de viris illustribus no less than his Qiesares were demonstrably pillaged by later historians who had occasion to treat of the same topics,^ but rather upon the numerous coincidences existing between the anonymous writer and admittedly Suetonian fragments,^ in particular those passages up, agrees in all essential particulars with the two sketches just cited. I was, therefore, all the more surprised to find that Suetonius had not sat for the por- trait so well painted by the two Gottingen scholars. Suetonius had, indeed, drunk deeply from pure historical fountains, but at the same time he would cast his dragnet far into the murky and polluted waters of tradition, and its rich haul was no less palatable to him. Cp. also. Peck, Suetonius' Lives of Caesar and Augustus^ New York 1889, p. x: He can only accumulate with patient industry a vast number of details. Nothing is too unpleasant, nothing too personal to be left unrecorded. He pins a scandal and adds it to his col- lection, as a naturalist would a butterfly, but at the same time he does not dwell upon these matters. ^ Cp. Mace I.e. p. 344. * H. Peter, Die geschichtl. Literat. etc. II. pp. 367-372. In spite of what has been written on the subject, the identity of the author of the unepitomized original and Aurelius Victor, the author of the Caesares^ is a by no means improbable contingency. The indebtedness of Victor to the Caesares of Suetonius is well established. Cp. Peter I.e. II. 356 if. ^ Mac^ I.e. p. 401-420; Peter I.e. II. 35. β E.g. de vir. ill. 2 = Suet. p. 318, 4 Rf. ; id. 3, 2 = id. p. 319, 2 ; id. 5, i = id. p. 320, 5. 50 SOURCES OF PLUTARCH'S LIFE OF CICERO concerning Cicero which the Anonymus and St Jerome have in common. X^. Remembering then that both these writers were alike indebted to Suetonius's de viris illnstribuSy we may now turn to c. 3 of Plutarch's biography, a paragraph, be it observed, so perfectly coherent, that it must needs have been taken in its entirety from one and the same source. Now this passage contains at least two errors. The one con- sists in the implication that the pro Roscio Amerino was the earliest speech of Cicero, whereas it is known that he made his oratorical d^but with \}^t,pro Quinctio in 81 B.C., in the 26th year of his age, the former belonging to the next year.^ As St. Jerome gives the correct date, it might be argued that Plutarch did not here follow Suetonius ; but this inference is neutralized by the second error, to the effect that Cicero after the Roscian trial left for Greece fearing the anger of Sulla, though he alleged ill health as the cause for his sudden departure. This statement flatly contradicts the facts of history, for so far from leaving Rome out of any dread of the dictator the young orator remained in the city for nearly two years more, delivering in the meantime at least two rpeeches, one for L. Varenus and another in behalf of a ^ That Plutarch did not purposely ignore the pro Quinctio^ as relating only to a causa privata^ is made clear by the fact that the very same error, as Gellius N, A. XV. 28, I informs us on the authority of Asconius Pedianus, was shared by Cornelius Nepos and Fenestella: in librorum primo quos de vita illius (sc. Ciceronis) composuit (sc. Nepos) errasse videtur cum eum scripsit tres et viginti annos natum primum iudicii publici egisse Sextumque Roscium . . . defendisse. In qua re etiam Fenestellam errasse Pedianus Asconius animad- vertit quod eum scripserit sexto vicesimo aetatis anno pro Sextio Roscio dixisse. Longior autem Nepotis quam Fenestellae error est nisi quis vult in animum inducere Nepotem studio amoris et amicitiae adductum amplificandae admirationis gratiae quadriennium suppressisse ut M. Cicero orationem floren- tissimam dixisse pro Roscio admodum adulescens videretur. Cicero himself makes no distinction between the two causae^ where he speaks of his first oratorical efforts. Cp. in Verr. II. 2, 65, 159, tum primum nos ad causas et privatas et publicas adire coepimus. SOURCES OF PLUTARCH'S LIFE OF CICERO 51 woman of Arretium.^ It must be perfectly clear that such a calumny, or, if you will, misunderstanding, cannot well have arisen until post- Augustan times ; and when I add that there are but two authors, besides Plutarch, who are guilty of the same misstatement, namely Hieronymus and the Anonymus? the conclusion that all three are equally indebted to Suetonius's vita Ciceronis will be irresistibly forced upon us,* the more so as palpable errors shared in common often furnish a safer clue to interdependence than coincidences in matters of fact. Plutarch's remarks concerning Cicero's father in c. i, as the ovhlv ην ττνθβσθαι μέτρυον and the oi μεν — οί Se indicate, must have been based upon an author who was wont to collect such traditions, leaving the reader to select what suited his fancy ; on the other hand, the calumny involved in iv κναφείφ Ttvi fcai yeveadai /cal τραφήναι τον avSpa excludes contem- porary biographers and historians.^ The whole passage has, 2 Cp. esp. ad Att. I. 19, 4 Arretinos quorum agrum Sulla publicarat neque diviserat, in sua possessione retinebam ; pro Caec, T^^i^ 97» (de eadem causa) at- que hoc et contra dicente Cotta et Sulla vivo iudicatum est; Brut. 91, 314, sed cum censerem remissione et moderatione vocis et commutato genere dicendi me et periculum vitare posse et temperatius dicere, ut consuetudinem dicendi mutarem, ea causa mihi in Asiam proficiscendi fuit. Itaque cum essem biennium versatus in causis et iam in foro celebratum meum nomen esset, Roma sum profectus. β Hieronymus : Roscio contra Chrysogonum defenso Cicero Athenas secessit et inde post triennium Romam regreditur ; de viris illust, 81 : Adolescens Rosciano iudicio eloquentiam et libertatem suam ad versus Sullanos ostendit ex quo veritus invidiam Athenas studiorum gratia petivit. It will be also noticed that all three authors speak of Athens or Greece (c/s τ^ν *Ελλά$α) as Cicero's immediate destination, whereas he expressly says that it was Asia. * That no injustice is done to Suetonius by ascribing to him a slanderous statement of this nature is made evident by Suet. lul, 4, composita seditione civili, Comelium Dolabellam . . . repetundarum postulavit; absolutoque Rhodum secedere statuit et ad declinandam invidiam et ut per otium et requiem ApoUonio Moloni clarissimo tunc dicendi magistro operam daret (cp. Plut. c. 4 and above p. 17). All the circumstances here afford an admirable parallel to the passage of Plutarch, and the motive given for Caesar's departure is as similar as it is unquestionably false. δ The same reproach is made by Calenus ap. Dio Cass. XLVI. 4, but this rhetorical invective could at best be only an echo of some contemporary 52 SOURCES OF PLUTARCH'S LIFE OF CICERO in fact, the true color Suetonianus ; and that this impression is not purely subjective is again shown by two passages in Hieronymus and the Anonymus® concerning Cicero's alleged royal descent, the statement being also found in Plutarch, but nowhere else in extant sources,^ while the name of the orator's mother and that of Herenniiis as one of the murderers of Cicero ^ are preserved only in St. Jerome and Plutarch. We have already seen that c. 4 could not have been taken from an early authority and it was intimated that Suetonius may well be made responsible for it. This hypothesis will be rendered all but certain by the following consideration. At the close of the chapter, Plutarch relates that ApoUonius (Molo), after listening in sullen silence to a Greek oration which Cicero had delivered amid the applause of his fellow pupils, finally, instead of also praising the effort, cried out that he pitied the fate of Greece, in that culture and eloquence, the only glory which still remained to her, would now also be transferred to Rome.^ This anecdote is nowhere even alluded to by Cicero ;^^ there is, indeed, but one other reference to it slander which did not in any case reach Plutarch directly from such remote and early sources. β Hieronymtis : M. TuUius Cicero Arpini nascitur Helvia, patre equestris ordinis ex regio Volscorum genere; de vir. ill. 8i : M. TuUius genere Arpinas patre equite Romano natus genus a Tullo Attio rege duxit. 7 Unless, indeed, we except Sil. Ital. Pun. VIII. 406, Regia progenies et Tullo sanguis ab alto ; XII. 175, Clarum Volscorum TuUi decus. Its origin may be due to a jesting remark of Cicero, Tusc. I. 16, 38, Pherecydes Syrius . . . antiquus sane; fuit enim meo regnante gentili. Cp. Brut. 16, 62, ut si ego me a M'. TuUio esse dicerem qui patricius cum Servio Sulpicio consul anno X post exactos reges fuit. 8 In view of the numerous extant accounts, this is a very significant parallelism. ® A similar story is told of John Reuchlin and his teacher Argyropolus. Cf. Raumer, Gesch. der Paedag. I. 65. '^^ That it was, in fact, unknown to him appears from Brut, 91, 316 : ibi me ad . . . Molonem applicavi ... in notandis animadvertendisque vitiis . . . prudentissimum. Is dedit operam (si modo id consequi potuit) ut nimis redundantes nos et superfluentes . . . reprimeret et quasi extra ripas diftiuentes coerceret. SOURCES OF PLUTARCH'S LIFE OF CICERO 53 in extant sources, and curiously it is found in none other than in the vita of the Anonymus, who mentions it, moreover, in precisely the same connection, for after speaking of Cicero's studies at Athens (cited above) he continues as follows : Inde eloquentiae gratia Asiam, post Rhodum petiit, ubi Molo- nem . . . magistrum habuit qui flesse dicitur quod per hunc Graecia eloquentiae laude privaretur. In view of the inter- dependence between the Anonymus, Plutarch, and Suetonius already established, this parallelism must be regarded as add- ing but another link in the chain of evidence for Plutarch's direct indebtedness to Suetonius's vita Ciceronis}^ Plutarch's statement (c. 46, Xer^erai) concerning the alleged reluctance of Octavian to sacrifice Cicero leads to the same conclusion. This transparent fiction, designed by apologists to clear the founder of the empire of one of the darkest stains in his entire career, is first met with in a famous pas- sage of Velleius,^ though it doubtless did not originate with him. Thereafter, excepting Plutarch, I have been able to find but two passages which imply a knowledge of this apology, for, strange as it may seem, neither Appian nor Dio make any allusion to it.^^ The one occurs in our anonymous vita: cum triumviros se fecissent Caesar, Lepidus Antoniusque concordia 11 An incidental remark in Suet, de rhet. i, Cicero ad praeturam usque etiam Graece declamitavit, Latine vero senior quoque et quidem cum consulibus Hirtio et Pansa, may show that he was not likely to have neglected a discus- sion of Cicero's rhetorical studies in his biography. ^2 IL 66, I, repugnante Caesare sed frustra adversus duos, instauratum SuUani exempli malum, proscriptio. Nihil tam indignum illo tempore fuit quam quod aut Caesar aliquem proscribere coactus est aut ab uUo Cicero pro- scrip tus est etc. ^3 Unless App. B. C. IV. 51, ^s ά.τΓ6\οτγίαν t^s Κικφωνο; ^κδόσεωδ . . . νττατον (sc. άΊΓέφηρ€ TOP vlbv του Κικέρωνοί) be so construed. Their silence may either have been due to their well-known hostility to Cicero which blinded them to the reprehensibility of Octavian 's conduct, or, what seems mqre probable, their sources were still ignorant of this particular attempt to whitewash the emperor. Livy*s famous comment can, of course, be interpreted only as a quasi justifica- tion of Antony. Cp. Liv. ap. Sen. Suas. VL 22, quae (sc. mors Ciceronis) vere aestimanti minus indigna videri potuit quod a victore inimico (sc. Antonio) nil crudelius passus est quam quod eiusdem fortunae compoti fecisset. 54 SOURCES OF PLUTARCH'S LIFE OF CICERO 7wn aliter visa est inter eos iimgi posse nisi Tullius necaretur^ the other in — Suetonius Aug, 27, in quo («c. triumvirato) restitit quidem aliquatndiu collegis ne qua fieret proscriptio sed incept am utroque acerbius exercuit. The latter statement is thereupon substantiated by numerous illustrations, whereas the tradition of Augustus's previous reluctance is allowed to stand by itself. This circumstance would be most plausibly explained by the assumption that Suetonius had already dis- cussed it elsewhere; but this was most appropriately done in his narrative of the death of Cicero, the most noted victim of the proscription. In the light of these passages, pointing as they all do in one and the same direction, another fact which a comparison between Plutarch and the anonymous vita reveals now at once assumes a peculiar significance. The latter contains thirty-six items of information. Of these all are met with in the Greek narrative,^* and, with two exceptions, in the identical chrono- logical order}^ As an isolated observation, this coincidence ^* See Appendix II. ^δ Quaestor — Aedilis — Praetor Ciliciam latrociniis liberavit — Consul. If the italicized sentence were sound, praetor would be absurd and the chronolog- ical sequence of events, otherwise strictly observed throughout, rudely destroyed. Two solutions of the difficulty suggest themselves, (a) Some words like /uit eodem tempore quo Pompeius dropped out after praetor, the temporal coinci- dence being sufficiently close (67, 66) to have caused the two to be mentioned together, particularly as Cicero's praetorship was not marked by any conspicu- ous achievement, (b) The allusion is to Cicero *s proconsulship in Cilicia, in 51 B.C. This is rendered probable, because otherwise all reference to his victo- rious campaign would be wanting. It is also not without significance that Plutarch and the Latin vita would here again alone coincide, in that both speak of Cicero's iusta victoria as a defeat of a band of robbers. If so, the words Ciliciam etc. may have been accidentally omitted, then placed in the margin, opposite Siciliam, owing to its graphical similarity to Ciliciam. Subsequently they intruded into the text in the wrong place, causing a conflation of two pas- sages, but the resulting blunder was not noticed, because the retention ol praetor did not disturb the regular sequence of the cursus honorum. Whether the con- fusion was due to a later scribe or to the epitomator, whose condensation of the original has here, in fact, been so merciless as to leave little more than bald chapter-headings, I do not venture to determine. — The other disagreement SOURCES OF PLUTARCH'S LIFE OF CICERO 55 would possess no argumentative validity whatever ; but when it is taken in connection with the preceding discussion, the inference that the anonymous vita and Plutarch's biography were alike based upon Suetonius will appear not merely plausible, but unavoidable and convincing. Xc. So far we were compelled to invoke the aid of authors under demonstrable obligations to Suetonius to prove Plu- tarch's indebtedness to him. In the following passage an extant utterance of Suetonius himself will, I hope, enable us to reach the same goal, although the road to it is a long one and obstructed with difficulties. I refer to the Dream of Cicero, related at length and with picturesque details by Plu- tarch in c. 44. It is a digression, abundantly marked as such by an eSo/cet, a ως eot/ce, and a φασί in two places. While Pom- pey and Caesar were still alive, the orator dreamed that the sons of senators had been summoned to the Capitoline hill, Jupiter intending to choose from out their number the future ruler of Rome. They all passed in review before him, whereupon he selected one boy and, taking him by the right hand, said : "This one, Ο Romans, as your ruler will put an end to the Civil Wars." Going down to the Campus Martius next day, among some boys at exercise Cicero's eyes fell first of all upon the very lad whom he had beheld in his dream. Amazed at this, he inquired about the boy's parents and learned that he was the son of one Octavius, a man not of noble descent, and of Attia, and that Julius Caesar was his uncle. By a curious coincidence also he was born in the very year of Cicero's consulship.^ These circumstances prompted him to occurs in a digression in c. 20. Plutarch there says that Cicero at an early date suspected Caesar of monarchical designs ; the same prescience is attributed to him in the vita^ but in connection with the Clodian episode. The only other extant writer to confirm this is — Suetonius (Caes. 14) who cites a letter of Cicero to that effect. See note to text (§ 46^). 1 Suet. Aug. 94 and Dio Cass. XLV. 2, in placing the birth of Augustus not only in the same year, but on the very day and hour of the famous senate meeting which decided the fate of the conspirators, show that the synchronistic 56 SOURCES OF PLUTARCH'S LIFE OF CICERO pay assiduous court to the youth, and at a later period they were alleged as the reason, or rather the pretext, for Cicero's efforts to win the favor of Octavianus. Now the question as to Plutarch's authority for this story, granting that it originally came from the living lips of Cicero and was not a transparent fiction ex eventUy might appear on first glance to be most satisfactorily answered by TertuU. de anitna c. 46, M. Tullius Cicero civilium turbinum cultorem de somnio ^ narrat quod in vitae illius commentariis conditum, particularly as Plutarch expressly quotes these very Memoirs in one place ^ and evidently alludes to them in another pas- sage* of his biography of Cicero. And yet, even if we were to admit, what is after all extremely doubtful,^ that Plutarch himself perused the thirteen books de vita stia^ the statement that Octavianus father was των ουκ αηαν βττίφανών cannot well have been taken from this source, although the emperor did not, like some of his panegyrical biographers, trace his descent back to Tarquinius PriscusJ The real difficulties method, so dear to the ancients, had as yet lost little of its fatal fascination. Cp. Yell. Pat. II. 36, i, consulatui Ciceronis non mediocre adiecit dec us natus eo anno divus Augustus, and above p. 31*^. ^ Cp. also Suet. Au^. 91 somnia neque sua neque aliena de se neglegebat. 3 Comp. Dent, et Cic. 3, b Καίσαρ kv roX^ irpos 'Aypiirirap καΐ Μαικήναν ύτΓομρήμασίρ €Ϊρηκ€ν. * Ct'c. 45 di/Jtokoryet di Καίσαρ αύτόί cJj . . . χρήσαιτο rj Κικέρωροί iv δέοντι φιλαρχί^ί. Cp. also Plut. Brut. 27, 41 ; Ani. 20, iv rots ίητομνήμΛσιν. δ Cp. Η. Peter, Z>/> Biographien etc. p. 136 f. β Suet. Aug. 85, aliqua de vita sua quam tredecim libris, Cantabrico ten us bello (27 B.C.) nee ultra exposuit. ■^ Suet. Aug. 2 f. Sed haec alii (Plut. Cic. i, ol δέ tU Τί)λλοι» Άττιον avayovaiv) : ipse Augustus nihil amplius quam equestri familia ortum scribit vetere ac locuplete et in qua primus senator pater suus fuerit (auros 7e μ^ν Κικέρων etc.). Μ. Antonius libertinum ei proavum exprobrat^ restionem e pago Thurino, avum argentarium (— o\ μλν yh.p iv κναφείφ τινί καΐ yeviadai καΐ τραφηναι τόν Ανδρα Xiyovaiv). Nee quidquam ultra de paternis Augusti maioribus repperi (ταΟτα pjkv οΰν . . , Ιστόρηταή. C. Octavius pater a principio aetatis et re et existima- tione magna fuit (6 μέντοι τρωτοί έκ του yivom Κικέρων έττονομασθβΐί άξιοί \6yov δοκ€Ϊ 7€»'^<Γ^αι etc.) ut equidem mirer hunc quoque a nonnullis argentarium . . . proditum. I have cited this paragraph in extenso to show the remarkable SOURCES OF PLUTARCH'S LIFE OF CICERO 57 begin, however, when we examine the two other references to this incident, preserved in Suetonius and Dio Cassius. It will be necessary to cite them in full. Suetonius Aug, 94 : quoniam ad haec ventum est, non ab re fuerit subtexere quae ei prius quam nasceretur et ipso natali die ac deinceps evenerint, quibus futura magnitudo etus et perpetua felicitas sperari animadvertique posset.® . . . Quo natus est die^ cum de Catilinae coniuratione ageretur in curia . . . vulgata res est P. Nigidium . . . affirmasse dominum terra- rum orbi natum? ... Q. Catubis post dedicatum Capitolium duabus continuis noctibus somniavit: prima, lovem Optimum Maximum e praetextatis compluribus circum aram ludenti- bus unum secrevisse at que in eius sinum rem publicam quam manu gestaret reposuisse ; at insequenti animadvertisse se in gremio Capitolini lovis eundem puerum, quem cum detrahi iussisset, prohibitum monitu dei, tamquam is ad tutelam rei publicae educaretur; ac die proximo obvium sibi Augustum, cum incognitum alias haberet non sine admiratione contuitus, simillimum dixit puero de quo somniasset. Quidam prius somnium Catuli aliter exponunt^ quasi luppiter compluribus praetextatis tutorem a se poscentibus, unum ex eis demons- trasset ad quem omnia desideria sua referrent, eiusque osculum delibatum digit is ad os suum retulisset. M. Cicero C. Caesarem in Capitolium prosecutus somnium family likeness between it and the opening chapter of Plutarch, which has already been proved on independent grounds to have been based upon Suetonius's vita Ciceronis. Here, as in the case of Augustus, evidently repi ToO ιτατρόί oihkv ^v ττυθέσθαι μέτρων. Cf. also Suet. Viteil. i, Vitelliorum originem alii aliam et quidem diversissimam tradunt, partim veterem et nobilem, partim vero novam et obscuram atque etiam sordidam etc.; Vesp. i. 8 Suetonius never loses an opportunity to report such predictions. Cp. also Serv. ad A en, VI. 799, Suetonius ait in vita Caesaris (in the. now lost opening chapter) responsa esse data per totum orbem nasci invictum imperatorem, and Suet. Vesp. 5. The similar passage in Plut. Cic. 2, τ j ^k τίτθ-ο φάσμα δοκ€Ϊ Ύ€Ρέσθαι καΐ irpoenreiv cJj 6φ€\θί μέya ircurt 'Ρωμα /ots ίκτρ^φούστ) etc. has, there- fore, like the rest of the paragraph, a strong Suetonian flavor. ^ It will be observed that the birth of Octavian in the year of Cicero's con- sulship is in Plutarch referred to in close connection with the dream. 58 SOURCES OF PLUTARCH'S LIFE OF CICERO pristinae noctis familiaribus forte narrabat: puerum facie liberali, demissum e caelo catena aurea, ad fores Capitolii con- stitisse eique lovem flagellum tradidisse ; deinde repente Augusto viso quern ignotum plerisque adhuc avunculus Caesar ad sacrificandum acciverat, affirmavit ipsum esse cuius imago secundum quietem sibi obversata sit. Dio Cass. XLV. 2 after relating four of the five 'prodigia' given by Suetonius, including the prediction of Nigidius, likewise continues with the story of the dreams : Πα^δισΛΟί; τ€ αυτού δντος καί την 8ίατριβην ev τί} Ύώμ'ρ ΤΓΟίουμβνου eSo^e ttotc ο Κ,ίκβρων οναρ, άΧνσβσί τ€ αύτον χ^ρνσαΐς €9 το KjolttltcSXlov etc του ουρανού καθιμησθαι καΐ μάστί'^α τταρά του Αώς βΙΧηφβναί' καΐ {ου yap ήττίστατο οστί<ζ ην) ΐΓ€ρΐ€τυγέ τ€ αύτω τή<; ύστβραίας iv αύτω τω Καττ^τω- \ίω καΐ ηνωρίσα^ αύτον Βιηγησατο τοις τταροΰσι την όψιν, ο τ€ ΚατοΟλος, ούδ' αυτός ττου ίωρακώς τον ^Οκταούϊον, ένόμισβ τους 7Γαΐ8ας iv τοις ΰττνοίς τους ^ύ^ζν^Ις ττάντας iv τφ Κ,ατητωΧίω ττρόσοΒον ττρος τον Αία 7Γ€7Γ0ΐήσθαί καϊ iv αύτη τον deov eiKova τιν^ της 'Τώμης iς τον iκeίvoυ κόΧττον iμβ€β\ηκ€vaL. iforXayeU δέ iirl τούτω, άνήΧθβν iς το Ι^ατητώΧίον 7Γροσ€υζόμ€νος τω θ€ω* καΐ i/cet τον ^Οκταούϊον €ύρων άΧΧως αναβ^βηκότα, το τ€ €ΐ8ος αυτού ττρος το imnrviov ττροσήρμοσβ καϊ την άΧήθααν της 6'>^€ως ίβζβαιώσατο. He then proceeds, again precisely as in Suetonius, ^^ μ€τα τούτο . . . την τ€ iadriTa την avSpi/crjv ivSύvτoς, 6 χαιτών ττ^ρίζρρά^η τ€ €κατ€ρωθ€ν άττο των i^Γωμίhωv καΐ μ€^ρι των 7Γθ8ών κατβρρύη. τούτο αύτο μέν καθ* έαυτο ούχ δττως τέκμαρσίν τίνα, ως καΐ αγαθόν TL ττροσημαΐνον, €φ€ρ€ν, άΧΧά fcal ήν(ασ€ τους τταρόν- τας. . . . iireXebv δέ τω ^Οκταουιω elirelv, οτι το άζίωμα το βουΧ€υτίκ6ν ττάν ύττο τους ττοδα? μου σχ^ησω . . . ef ούν τού- των 6 Καίσαρ /χβγαλα βττ' αύτω iX^Γίσaς . . . iirl την αρχ^ην ησκ€ΐ ^^ Aujf. 94» Sumenti virilem togam tunica lati clavi, resuta ex utraque parte, ad pedes decidit. Fuerunt qui interpretarentur non aliud significare, quam ut is ordo cuius insigne id esset quandoque ei subiceretur. . . . Another mira- cle is related, and then : illo et praecipue ostento motum Caesarem fenint, ne quern alium sibi succedere quam sororis nepotem vellet. SOURCES OF PLUTARCH'S LIFE OF CICERO 59 καΐ ττάνθ* οσα ττροσήκα τω μεΧΧοντι καΧώς . . . τηΧικοΰτον κράτος 8ιοικήσ€ίν χπτάργζΐν^ ακριβώς e^eiraihevae. Dio, as is generally admitted, handles his borrowed material with considerable freedom, expanding or condensing to suit his purpose ; accordingly we meet with some items in the above narrative which he could not have found in Suetonius, although the coincidences between them are otherwise remarkably close and numerous. Now, unless we are prepared to regard all the accretions in question as emanating from Dio himself, the resemblance just pointed out must be attributed to a common third source^ such as the ®€οΧο^ούμ€να of Asclepiades Mendes perhaps, whom Suetonius expressly cites as ^ne of his authori•" ties, for it cannot be denied that the story of the dream might also have found an appropriate place in such a work. The further inference, however, that Plutarch may be likewise indebted to this ^^συναηω^^η θαυμάσιων,'' since all direct obliga- tions to Augustus's υτΓομνηματα are out of the question, must be rejected the moment we analyze the passages in Dio, Sue- tonius, and Plutarch a little more closely. In the first place, it must be noted that the account of the last named differs in essential particulars and in the very setting from the narra- tive of the others. Then again, Plutarch omits Catulus alto- gether, though some of the details of Cicero's dream are incorporated by Suetonius and Dio in the dream which they attribute to Catulus, Dio, moreover, to make matters worse, in his turn combining some features of both dreams. Tertullian unfortunately fails to inform us how the orator's dream was related in the emperor's Memoirs, ^^ nor can we gather from his silence that no mention at all was made of the similar experience of Catulus. Now, as Suetonius demon- strably made a most extensive use of Augustus's autobiography 11 Perhaps Tertullian*s reference to Augustus as the man destined to put an end to the civil wars, the very prediction in which the vision of Cicero culmi- nates, may point to the Memoirs as the ultimate source of Plutarch ; for in the other versions the civil wars do not figure at all. 6ο SOURCES OF PLUTARCH'S LIFE OF CICERO and yet tells an essentially different story, two possible solutions suggest themselves. Either Plutarch, through an oversight or intentionally, substituted Cicero for Catulus who, if known to him at all, may have appeared too unimpor- tant an individual for his purpose, or else Suetonius related the anecdote differently in his Cicero and in his Augustus, In the one, following some such authority as Asclepiades or lulius Marathus,^ he gave it as we read it in the extant biography; in the other, adopting the version of Augustus's own narrative, he told it as we find it in Plutarch. I believe that the latter alternative more accurately represents the actual state of affairs, a conviction confirmed by the remark of Suetonius I.e. Quidam prius somnium Catuli aliter exponunt etc. For, just as we here learn that Catulus was credited with two dreams on the same subject during successive nights, but that tradition varied as to the contents of the first, so we may plausibly conjecture that a dream which some attributed to Catulus was by others assigned to Cicero, and that the latter version had been accepted by Suetonius in his Life of Cicero and thus transmitted to Plutarch; the interval of time which separated the two Latin biographies, as well as the various sources consulted by Suetonius, being quite sufficient to account for the divergences in question. X^. Having thus established Plutarch's indebtedness to Suetonius's ζ/ί'/Λ Ciceronis with the aid of the Suetonian mate- rial still extant, we shall now be methodically justified in assigning to the same source those portions of Plutarch's biography for which in a majority of instances we were com- pelled on mternal grounds to assume a post-Augustan origin, provided they at the same time clearly exhibit the well-known characteristics of Suetonius. Now the items which completely satisfy the aforesaid con- ditions are above all those pertaining to the personal or strictly ^2 Cited by Suet. I.e. as one of his sources. SOURCES OF PLUTARCH'S LIFE OF CICERO 6 1 biographical traits of Cicero^ for which, as we have seen, Tiro had hitherto, though on insufficient grounds or positively erroneous surmises, been regarded as the fons primarius of Plutarch. To be more specific, I maintain, and I hope the preceding discussion has justified the claim, that the following topics were taken by Plutarch directly from Suetonius*s vita Ciceronis: The information concerning the parentage, the name (c. i), the birth and the early youth of Cicero, the statement about his poetic effusions (c. 2 and 40), the criticism passed upon them (c. 2), the entire contents of c. 5, the stray notes on Cicero's property (c. 5. 6) and on the state of his health (c. 8). Furthermore, the learned digression concerning Cicero's self- glorification and eulogy of others (c. 24), the alleged origin of his feud with Clodius (c. 27), the philological comment on Cicero's merits in enriching the Latin language by the coinage of philosophical terms (c. 40) and the remark on Cicero's design to write a Roman History (c. 41), the story of his matrimonial troubles (c. 41), and finally the narrative of his proscription and assassination (c. 46-49). That the important events in the career of Cicero which in Plutarch are intimately associated with his forensic activity, such as the trial of Verres, the attack upon the agrarian legislation of Rullus, the affairs of Manilius and Milo, also received adequate treatment at the hands of Suetonius goes without saying. Now, as the Greek author in all these instances did not, as we have shown, draw from the original fountain, the inference, that he here too had recourse to the same authority whom he followed so extensively elsewhere, will not be rejected as intrinsically improbable. 1 That a few of these may have reached Plutarch through oral channels or may represent the gleanings of his own casual reading, whether reproduced from memory or from his notebook, is all but certain (cp. e.g. c. 6. 49, 3 ττυνθά.- νομαι. etc.), especially in the case of anecdotal topics. But the material collected from such quarters could not have been sufficiently extensive to invalidate the above contention. See p. 4. ^ 62 SOURCES OF PLUTARCH'S LIFE OF CICERO For the strictly historical events, in particular the Catilinian conspiracy, I am rather inclined to postulate some post- Augustan authority whose attitude was distinctly favorable to Cicero and who was in possession of all the contemporary sources on the subject, but who made no attempt to reconcile the manifold differences or traditions which had arisen in the lapse of time. The Clodian episode on the other hand, though also of one piece and hence not to be distributed among several sources, may well have been treated in Sueto- nius ; at least, the story of the origin of the feud and the role assigned to Terentia (c. 29), as well as the account of the exile and the return of Cicero, are quite in his manner, not to mention that Plutarch quite fails to grasp the deeper political significance of events, but merely chronicles, again more SuetonianOy the bald facts. On the basis of two passages of Aulus Gellius ^ and Ser- vius,^ Reifferscheid has with considerable ingenuity attempted to vindicate to Suetonius a work, entitled Historia belloriim civilitimy which comprised the events from Pompey's defeat of the pirates {^^ B.C.) to the battle of Actium (31 b.c). This history, which, according to the same scholar, was also consulted by Dio Cassius and St. Jerome, would thus prac- tically have included the entire career of Cicero, and as such might have been Plutarch's source for the historical portions just discussed, as well as for those relating to the Civil War proper (49-31), in which case Suetonius would have been relieved of the necessity of treating the same occurrences at length in his Life of Cicero. This enticing theory, however, stands and falls with the initial hypothesis of Reifferscheid. But, as he has unfortunately utterly failed to establish its 2 Λ1 ^. XVI. 4, 4, Eundem Bassum Suetonius Tranquillus praepositum esse a M. Antonio . . . Parthos tribus ab eo proeliis f usos scribity eumque primum omnium de Parthis triumphasse et, morte obita, publico funere sepultum esse. 3 ad Verg. Georg. IV. 127, per transitum tangit historiam a Suetonio memo- ratam. Pompeius enim victis piratis Cilicibus partim ibidem, partim in Graecia, partim in Calabria agros dedit. SOURCES OF PLUTARCH'S LIFE OF CICERO 63 verisimilitude,^ no inferences of any value can be drawn from it for the solution of the problem before us. There is no reason to believe that Suetonius treated of these events at any greater length in his Life of Cicero, they being more or less incidental to it, than Plutarch felt called upon to do, particularly as historical narrative was not Sueto- nius's forte. There would, therefore, be no obstacle to the assumption that Plutarch here too was content to follow in the footsteps of the Roman biographer, were it not for the fact that the other Lives alluded to above (p. 41 . 46) prove that he had secured and utilized an exhaustive account of the Civil Wars, it^^bemg unlikely that this was as yet unknown to him when he composed his Cicero which preceded them in time.^ But be this as it may, we shall at any rate be justified in contending on the strength of the foregoing analysis that Plutarch did not consult at first hand any of the works of Cicero or any pre-Augustan authorities, such as Sallust, Tiro, or Nepos, but that the vita Ciceronis of Suetonius constituted his principal source. In fact, I feel convinced that if the last named were extant we should discover that their interdepend- ence was essentially similar to that which obtains between Plutarch's Coriolamis and the corresponding narrative of Dionysius, whom the biographer followed even in those cases where an tviol φασιν would naturally suggest some other sources of information. * The entire question has been fully dealt with by Mace, Essai sur Suetone pp• 346-354• ^ On the chronological sequence of Plutarch's Lives, see Michaelis, ^^ ordine vitarum parall. Plutarchi^ Berlin 1875. '^^^ ^'^^ Ciceronis is later than that of Sulla ; but as this, according to c. 21, cannot have been published before 115 A.D., we have a terminus post quern for the Life of Cicero. Now^ Plin. Epist. v. 10 (105 A.D.), as is generally admitted, alludes to the de viris illus- trious of Suetonius, and asks him not to withhold them any longer from the public. There will, therefore, be no chronological difficulty in the way of Plutarch's indebtedness to this work, even if we agree with Mace I.e. p. 66-72 on so late a date as 113 a.d. for its appearance, particularly as all of its five parts were not necessarily issued together. APPENDIX I EXPLANATORY NOTE The division of the Greek text into paragraphs and sub-paragraphs is designed to distinguish more clearly than is done by the traditional chapter- numbers the constituent parts into which the biography may be resolved. The foot-notes do not aim to give an even adequately complete Source Commentary, but are chiefly intended to refute by an accumulation of examples the opinion now generally held, and discussed in the preceding pages, that Plutarch directly consulted the works of Cicero or any other contemporary authority, such as Sallust, for biographical purposes. The more important passages are cited under two rubrics. Those under (A) designate substantial agreement with Plutarch, those under (D) disagreement in whole or in part. All source-references in the text are spaced. The text is that of Sintenis, with the following exceptions : c. 2, 5 S. ^\μJkp(l. . . ΚαΧαρδωρ exhibits a hopeless confusion, primarily caused by Plutarch's misreading novas for nonas, "ΚαΚανδών is probably an explanatory gloss due to a misunderstanding of ante diem III. Nonasy the month having been omitted. See c. 2 note 4. The soundness of the text can be vindicated only on the supposition that PI. followed the Greek method of reckoning and that novae Kalendae was used for the Kalends of January, but for this I can find no evidence. c. 4, 17. KoX ToXXiJ is bracketed because the words contradict c. 3, 29, ^ φων^ ΐΓολλή μλν καΐ άΎαθή, The double τολλά (11. 1 8, 19) is probably responsible for the addition. c. 5, 23. The absurd νόσησαν has been changed to ροήσα$. See my note, Ciass. Rev. XIV (1900) p. 62. c. 7, 25. Βέρρην yap . . . κάλοΰσιν clearly belongs after Ιίφη 6 Κικέρων. c. 23, 22. έκΐίνων with some MSS. for iKcLvov, for the i^ovaia of the praetor Caesar and the tribune Cato was not ϊσ-η. c. 29, 16. I have introduced my emendation 5ta Εατί^λλον for 5ta Τιίλλου. Compare Am er. Jour, of Phil. XI pp. 316 ff. Σνγκρ, 1, 4. I write Καιλίου for Ke/ctXiou, but retain the latter reading, though equally erroneous, in c. 36, for the reasons given on p. 44. My thanks are due to my friend and colleague Prof. Wm. N. Bates for his kindness in reading the proof of these pages. Feb. 1902. A. G. 6s PLUTARCH'S LIFE OF CICERO β 1. I. Κ6Κ€ρωνθ9 δέ την μίν μηΓύρα'"^ λ€γουσιν ΈΧ,βύιν και yeyovevai καΧως καΐ βφίωκεναχ» Ilcpt Sc τον ττατρος ovS^v ην Ίτνθύσθαί μέτρων- 01 μ€ν γαρ iv κναφείω^ τινί καΐ γενίσθαι καΐ τραφηναι τον άνδρα λ€γουσιν, οί δ* eh Τιίλλον "Αττιον άνάγονσι την αρ^ν τον yevovs^ βασιΧνοσαντα λαμπρώς iv Ονολονσκοις ^ καΐ πολ€μησαντα *Τωμαίοις ονκ άδυνάτως. 2. Ο μεντοι πρώτος Ικ τσυ γίνονς Κικέρων Ιπονομασθείς άζιος λόγου δοκει yeveaOou, διό την Ιπίκλησιν ονκ άπψραΙ/αν οΐ μ€τ αυτόν, αλλ* ησπάσαντο, καίπερ νπο πολλών χλευαζομένην. Kiicepa γαρ οι Λατίνοι τον Ιρφινθον καλουσι, κάκ£ΐνο9 iv τω πΐρατι της ρινός Βωχττολην, ως coiKev, αμβΧ€αν ^ΐχεν, ωσπερ ipφίvθov ^ιχιφνην, αφ* ης iKTi^aaTO την iπωwμlav. Αυτό 5 γ€ μην Κικ€ρων, VTrcp ον τάδ€ γεγραττται, των φίλων αυτόν οίομενων hav, δτ€ πρώτον άρ^ν /actj/ci και 7ΓθλιΤ€ία5 -^tttcto, φνγεΐν τον- νομα και μεταθύσθαι^ kiycTai νεανιευσάμενος cittciv, ως άγωνιειται τον Κικ€ρωνα των ^κανρων και των Κάτλων ivSoioTepov άπο8€ί$αι. Τα/χΐ€υων δ iv !^ικ€λια και τοΐς θ€θΐς ανάθημα πονονμΛνος apyvpovv τα μίν πρώτα δυο των ονομάτων iπeγpa^|/€, τον τ€ Μ άρκον και τον Τΰλλιον, άντι δέ τον τρίτον σκώτΓτων ip^tvOov iKO<.(^XT€ πάρα τα γράμματα τον τεχνίτην «ντορευσαι. Ταύτα μ€ν ονν περί τον ονόματος Ιστόρηται. Jan. 3, 3. II. Tc^^vai δέ Κικ€ρωνα λ €γ ου σι ν άνωδυνως και άπόνως λοχεν- θεύτης αντον της μητρός ήμ^ρα τρίτΊβ των νέων ΚαλανδωνΙ,* iv η νυν οί C Ν Λ C άρχοντας €νχονταΛ. και ^υουσιν ϋττέρ του ηγεμονος* Ύη δέ TiT^iy φάσμα δοκ€ΐ ycviaOaL και προαπύν ως δφ^λος p-eya ττασι 'Ρωραιοις iκτp€φovσy. Ταΰτα δ€ άλλως όν€ΐρατα και φλναρον civai δοκοΰντα ταρ(€ω9 αΰτ09 ά7Γ€δ€ΐέ€ pjavTttav άΧηθινην iv ηλικία του μανθάναν γενόμενος, δι* ευφνίχιν iκλάμλ|/aς και λαβών όνομα και δό^αν iv τοις ποΛσίν, ώστ€ τους πατέρας αντων iπιφoιτav τοΐς διδασκαλ€ΐοΐ9 δψα tc βονλομενονς ιδ€Γν τον Κικ€ρωνα και τήν νμνονμενην αντον π€ρΙ Tcts μαθησας οζντητα και συν€σιν ΙστορησαΛ, Passages quoted verbatim or discussed in the foregoing analysis are marked with an asterisk (*). 1 (A) * Hieron. in Euseb. Chron. Olymp. i68, 3(2). 2 (A) * Calenus apud Dio Cass. XLVI. 4, 2. 5, 3. 8 (A) * Hieron. I.e. ; de vir. illustr, 81 (Appendix II). (D) pro Mur, 8, 17. * (D) Cic. ad Att. XIII. 42, 2, diem meum scis esse III. Nonas lanuarias; VII. 5, 3, III. Nonas, natali meo ; Gell. N. A. XV. 28, 3. 66 PLUTARCH'S LIFE OF CICERO 67 τους δ' aypoucorepovs ορΎίζίσθοχ τοις νΐίσιν ορώντας iv ταΐς 68οις τον Κίκψωνα μΙσον αυτών ΙττΙ τιμ.^ λαμβάνοντας. 4. Τ€νόμ€νος δ', ωσττερ 6 Πλάτων* άζίοΐ την φιλομαθή καΐ φιλό- σοφον φνσιν, olos άσττάζίσ^αί, τταν μάθημα καΧ μη^^ν λόγον μη8€ τταώείας άτιμάζα,ν €Τδθ5, ^ρρνη ττως προθνμότ€ρον iirl ποιητικήν. Kat τι και ττοιημά- τυον €TL παιδθ9 αυτοί) δ(ασώζ€ται, Πόντιος Γλαύκος» «ν Τ€τραμ€τρκ^ ττ^ΊΤονημί.- νον. Προϊών δέ τω χρόνω και ττοικιλώτ^ον ατττόμΛνος της irtpi ταύτα μονσης €8o$€v ου μόνον ρητωρ, άλλα και ττοιητης άριστος €?ναι Ρωμαίων. Η μλν ουν iiri τη ρητορική Βάζα μ^χρι νυν ^ναμίνιι^ καχττερ ον μικρας Ύ€τγ€νημ€νης Trcpi τους λόγους καινοτομίας,^ την δ€ ττοιητικην αυτού, πολλών ευφυών Ιττι-γίνομενων, τταντάττασιν άκλχη και άτιμον * Ippeiv συμβύβηκεν. 5. III. 'Απαλλαγείς δέ των iv τταισι Βνατριβων Φίλωνος ηκουσ€ του 88 B.C. €$ * Ακα^ημείας,* ον μάΧιχττα 'Ρωμαίοι των ίίλατομάχου συνήθων και δια τον λόγον €^αΰ/Αασαν και δια τον τρόττον ήγάττησαν. 'Άμα δε τοις ττερι Μοΰκιον g^gg ανδράσι συνων* ττολιτικοις και πρωτεΰουσι της βουλής €ΐς Ιμπειρίαν των *'^• νόμων ώφ€λ€Ϊτθ' 6. καί τίνα χρόνον και στρατί,ίας μ€Τ€σχ€ν υπό !^ΰλλοι irepl τον Μαρσικόν 89 B.C. πόλε/Αον.^ 7. Εί0 ορών CIS στάσιν, €κ δε τής στάσεως εις αίκρατον ΙμττίΐΓΤοντα τα Ίτράγματα μΛναρ^φιν^ επι τον σχολαστήν και θεωρητικον €λθων βίον *Έλλησι σννην φιλολόγοις και ττροσύχί. τοις μαθημασιν,^ ά;(ρι ου !^ΰλλας 82 B.C. €κράτησ€ και κατάστασιν τίνα λαμβάνειν εδο^εν 17 τόλις. 8. Έν δε τω χρόνφ τουτ<ρ Χ,ρυσόγονος απελεύθερος !^ΰλλα προσαγγειλας τινός ούσιαν ως εκ προγραφής άναχρεθιντος ^ αυτός εωνησατο δισχιλιων 8ΐ B.C. δραχμών* Έπει δε Ρακτκιος 6 υιός και κληρονόμος τον τεθνηκότος ηγα- so B.C. νάκτει και τήν ουσίαν άπεδεικνυε πεντήκοντα και διακοσίων ταλάντων ουσαν ά^ίαν,**^ δ τε !^ΰλλας ελεγχόμενος εχαλεπαχνε και Βίκην πατροκτονίας επήγε τω 1 (Α) Plato de rep. V. 466. 2 (α) Cp. Tac. Dial. 19-23. * (A) Cp. Tac. Dial. 21, fecerunt enim et carmina . . . non melius quam Cicero sed felicius quia illos fecisse pauciores sciunt, to which passage I have collected the numerous corroborative criticisms (p. 235). * (D) * Cic. ad /am. XIII. 1,2. ^ (a) Cic. de amic. 1,1. * (D) Cic. Phil. XII. 11, 27, Cn. Pompeius, S. F., consul, me praesente cum essem tiro in eius exercitu cum . . . duce Marsorum . . . collocutus est. ■^ (A) These events had been related at length in the earlier Life of Sulla. 8 (A) To this period belong the de inventione and the translation of Xeno- phon*s Oeconomicus, Cp. also Brttt 90, 308 ff. ; de off. II. 24, 87. ^ (A) Qic. pro Rose. Am. 11, 32, occisum in proscriptorum numerum rettu- listis; I, 1-4. 2, 5; Quint. XII. 6, 3, summis audientium clamoribus dixerit ; Gell. Λ^. A. XV. 28, 3, florentissimam orationem. 10 (D) Cic. I.e. 2, 6, duobus milibus nummum (= $75, not $370) ; 8, 21, imprudente L. Sulla facta esse certe scio etc.; 9, 25. 38, no. 45, 130 f. 68 APPENDIX I 'Ρωσκιω,^ του Χ,ρνσογόνον καταχτκευάσαντος, ίβσηθει δ' ov^ts, αλλ' άττετρί- ΊΓοντο τον !^ΰλλα την χαΧ€'πότητα Sehoucore^^ οντω Srj δι' ίρημύιν του μυαρακίαυ τω Κικφωη προσφνγόντος οΐ φίλοι σνμτταρώρμων, ως ουκ αν αντω Χαμπροτ€ραν ανθις α,ρχ^ην ττρος S6$av €Τ€ραν ουδέ καΛΛιω γενησομένην. *Αναδε^ά/Α€νθ9 ονν την σννηγορναν καΐ κατορθώσας Ιθανμάσθη '^ 9. δ^διως δέ τον ^νλλαν άπε&ημησεν €15 την 'Ελλάδα,* δίοαττα/οας λόγον, ως του σώματος αντω θεραπείας δ^ο/χένου. Και γαρ ην όντως Ισχνός καΐ άσαρκος, αρρώστια στομάχον μικρά καΐ γλύτχρα μόγις οψε της ώρας ιτροσ- φερόμενος•^ η Sk φωνή ττολλη μεν καΐ άγαθη, σκληρά 8ε και αττλαστος, νττο δέ τον λόγον σφοδρότητα kcu πάθος Ιίχοντος άει δια των άνω τόνων ελαννο- μενη φόβον παρεϊχεν νπερ τον σώματος* ^ΒΟ* ^^• ^^' '•^Φ^'^ό/Α€νο9 δ* €ΐς Χ,θηνας *Κ.ντιό\ον τον Άσκαλωνιτου hrj- κονσε,^ τη μεν ενροία των λόγων αΰτου και χαριτι κηλονμενος, α δ' cv τοις Βόγμασιν ενεωτεριζεν ονκ CTratvoJv. 11. Ήδι; γαρ εζνστατο της νέας λεγομένης Άκα8ημείας 6 *Αντίοχος καΐ την Καρνεάδου στάσιν εγκατέλειπεν, εϊτε καμπτόμενος νπο της ενάργειας και των αΙσθησεων, είτε, ως φασιν ενιοι, φιλοτιμία τινι καΐ διάφορα προς τονς Κλειτομαχον και Φίλωνος σννηθεις τον "^,τωϊκον ^ εκ μεταβολής θερα- πενων λόγον εν τοις πλείστοις. 12. Ο δε Κικφων εκείνα ηγάπα κάκείνοις προσεΐχε μάλλον, διανοούμενος, €1 Ίταντάπασιν εκπέσοι του τα κοινά πράσσειν, δα5ρο μετενετγκάμενος τον βίον εκ της αγοράς και της πολιτείας εν ήσνχία. μετά φιλοσοφίας καταζην*^ Τ 8 B.C. 13. *Έίπει δ* αΰτω !^ΰλλας τε προσηγγέλθη τεθνηκώς, καΧ το σώμα τοις γνμνασίοις άναρρωνννμενον εις εζιν εβό^ίζε νεανικην, η τε φωνή λαμβάνουσα πλάσιν ή^ΐα μλν προς άκοην ετίθραπτο [και πολλή], μετρίως 8ε προς την ε$ιν ηρμοστο τον σώματος, ττολλα μεν των άπο Ρώμης φίλων γραφόντων και 8εομενων, ττολλα δ' *Αντιόχον παρακελενομενον τοις κοινοΐς επιβαλείν πράγμασιν, αυ^ις ώσπερ όργανον εζηρτνε τον ρητορικον λόγον καΐ άνεκίνει την πολιτικην 8νναμιν, αυτόν τε τοις μελεταις ^ιαπον'2ν και τονς επαινουμε- νονς μετιων ρήτορας. 1 See note ίο, ρ. 67. 2 See note 9. Ρ• 67; pro Rose. Am. ι, ι. 21, 59 ; Brut. 90, 312. 8 (A) * Hieron. in Euseb. Chron. (= Suet on.) Olymp. 175, i; de vir. ill. c. 81. (D)* Brtit. 91, 314. * (A) Brut. 91, 313, erat eo tempore in nobis summa gracilitas et infirmitas corporis, procerum et tenue coUum qui habitus et quae figura non procul abesse putatur a vitae periculo si accedit labor et laterum magna contentio. (D) Brut. 1. c. δ (A) Cic. de leg I. 21, 54; Acad. I. 4, 13. β (A) Acad. IT. 43, 132, erat quidem . . . germanissimus Stoicus. ^ (D) These designs belong to a later period in Cicero's life. Cp. c. 40 and ad Att. II. 5, 2. 12, 4. 16, 3; IV. 16, 10; IX. 4, 2. 9. PLUTARCH'S LIFE OF CICERO 69 14. '^OOev €ts Άσώιν και Ρόδον ίπΧενσε, καΐ των μλν Άσιανώι/ ρητόρων Τ8 Β.ο. EcvoicAct τω Άδρα/χυτη/νω #C(u Διονυσιω τω Μάγη/τι και Mcvi7nr(p τω Καρι σνν€σ\όλασ€ν, iv δέ *Ρόδ<ρ ρητορι μλν Άττολλωνιψ τφ Μόλωνος,* φιΧοσόφψ δ€ Ποσ€ίδων6(ρ.^ Λ€γ€ται• δ€ τον "Απολλώναη' ου σννιότα τ^ν Ί^ωμαίκην δαίλεκτον δο/^ναι του Κικ^ωνος ΕΙλλι^νιστΙ μJe\cτησaι^ τον δ' ΰττακουστα προθνμως, Οίό /Aevov ούτως ϊσ^σθαί βίλτίονα την ίττανόρθωσιν ' cttcI δ* cficXen^c, τους /A€V αλλοι^ς €Κ7Γ€'7Γλ^ρ(^ι #civ. in Caec. 5, 19, abs te sestertium milies ex lege repeto. * (A) in Verr. I. 18, 56 and Ps. Ascon. p. 106 frustra calumniantur Cice- ronem quidam homines et modo eum sestertium milies dicunt repetere, modo quadringenties. But cp. Plut. c. 7 μτ}τ€ δώρα dvAa/Se. β (A) ♦ Mart. IV. 55, 3. 6 (A) * Cic. de nat. deor. I. 3, 5, doctissimorum hominum familiaritates quibus semper domus nostra floruit. τ (A) Cic. ad Quint, f rat. III. 3, i ; λ^/ Att. II. 23, i. 8 (A)* Asin. Poll. ap. Sen. Suas. VI. 24. θ (D) This house was purchased after his consulship. Cp. Cic. ad/am. V. 6, 2 ; ad Att. I. 16, 10 ; Cell. N. A. XII. 12, i. The topics 29 ff. are disjointed and accumulated without reference to chronology. Plutarch had nothing to say about the aedileship, and these items are put in to fill the gap, as it were. PLUTARCH'S LIFE OF CICERO 73 Έ^€/οά7Γ€υον δε κιβ* ημψα,ν inl θνρας φοιτωντ€ς ουκ cAarrovcs η Κράσσον €πι Ίτλοντω και Πο/χτη/ϊον δια την iv τοις στρατεύμαχη ^ύναμιν, θανμχιζομ€- νους μάλιστα Ρω/ιαιων και μέγιστους οντάς. ΐίομττηίος δ€ και Κικερωνα €$€pan€V€, και μεγάλα προς δνι^μχν αντω και δό^ν η Κικ€ρωνος σννείΓρα^ί πολιτεία. 32. IX. Ι,τρατηγίαν Sk μετιόντων αμα ctvf αΰτω πολλών και μεγάλων 66 Β.ο. πρ&Γος απάντων άνηγορεύθη•^ καΐ τας κρίσεις Ιδο^ε καβαρώς και καλώς )9ρα)9€νσαι. Λέγεται δε και Αικιννιος Μίίκερ, άν^ρ και κα^ αύτον ισ;(νων εν τ^ πόλει ρ,εγα και Κράσσφ χρωμενος βοηθώ, κρινόμενος κλοττης επ* αύτου, τη δυνάμει και σττον^η πειτοιθώς, Ιτι τ^ν ψηφον των κριτών διαφερόντων άττϊχλ- λαγεις οικαδε κειρασ^αι τε τ^ν κeφaληv κατά τάχος και καθαρον ίμάτιον ως νενικηκως λαβών αιΙ^ις εις ayopav προϊέναι• του δε Κράσσου περί τ^ν αυλειον άπανη/σαντο? αύτώ και φράσαντος, οτι πάσαις εάλωκε ταΐ? ψηφοις^ άναστρίψας και κατακλινεις άπο^ϋΐνειν.^ Το δε ττράγμα τω Κικερωνι δό^αν ^νεγκεν ώς επι/Αελώς βραβεύσαντι το ^.καχττηριον.^ Έπει δε Ούατιν:ο5, άνήρ ε;;(ων τι τραγν καΐ προς τονς άρχοντας ολίγωρον εν ταΪ5 συνηγορίοΜς, χοιρά^ων δε τον τράχηλον περιπλέω?, ?;τειτό τι κατα- στάς πάρα του Κικφωνος, και μη δίδοντος, άλλα βονλενομενον πολύν χρόνον, εΤπεν, ώς ουκ αν αυτός διστάσεΐί περί τοντου στρατηγών, επιστραφείς ό Κικέρων *'*Αλλ' εγώ,'' ειπεν, "ουκ €;(ω τι/λικουτον τράχηλον.^^* ''Έτι δ' ημίρις hvo η τρύς Ιχοντι της άρχης αυτώ προστ/γαγί τις Μανιλιον ευθυνών κλοττής.^ Ο δε Μανιλιος ούτος εΰνοιαν €ΐχ€ και σπουδών υπο τον 8ημου, ^κων ελαυνεσ^αι δια Πο/Ατη/ϊον • εκείνου γαρ -ζν φίλος, ΑΙτουμίνου δ ημέρας αΰτου ρχαν ό Κικέρων μόνην την επιουσαν έδωκε • και ό 8ημος ηγα- νάκτησεν είθισμίνων των στρατηγών δέκα τοΰλά;(ΐστον ημέρας διδόναι τοις κινδυνετχ)υσι. Τών δέ δημάρχων αντον διαγαγόντων επι το βήμα και κατη- γορονντων, άκουσθηναι δεηθείς ειπεν, οτι τοις κινδυνετχηκτιν άει, κα^' όσον οι νόμοι παρεικουσι, κεχρημενος επιεικώς και φιλανθρωπως δεινον ήγειτο τω Μανιλίω ταύτα μη παρασχεΐν ' ης ουν ετι μόνης κύριος ην ημέρας στρατηγών, ^ (Α) Cic. Brut. 93» 3-^ > /^'^ ^<^^ Man. Ι. 2, ter praetor primus centuriis cunctis renuntiatus sum. 2 (D) * Cic. ad Att. I. 4, 2 ; Val. Max. IX. 12, 7 (suicide before conviction). 8 (A) * Cic. I.e. nos incredibili ac singulari populi voluntati de C. Macro transegimus. Cui cum aequi fuissemus, tamen multo maiorem fructum ex populi existimatione, illo damnato, quam ex ipsius si absolutus esset, gratia cepissemus. * (A)C\Q.pro Sest. 65, 135 strumam civitatis (cp. Schol. Bob. p. 310); /'// Vat. 4, 10 (cp. Schol. Bob. p. 316) ; in Vatin. 2, 4, iniiato colic, tumidis cervici- bus intulisti. This particular retort is, however, not found elsewhere. Cp. Kurtz, Philol. 36, p. 569. 6 (D) * Dio Cass. XXXVI. 44. 74 APPENDIX I ταντην €πίτη8€ς ορισαι • το yap ets άλλον άρχοντα την κρίσιν €κβα\€Ϊν ουκ eivai βονλομίνου βοτφύν. Ταύτα \€•)(θίντα θανμχιστην Ιπονησ€ τσυ &ημον μυεταβολην * και ττολλα κατενφημχηψτες αντον i^eovro την νττερ τον Μανιλώυ σννηγορίαν άναΧαβειν. Ο δ* υπέστη προθνμως, οΰχ ηκιστα δια Ιίομπη'ίον οττόντα • καΙ καταστας πάλιν i$ V7rap)^s €^μηγόρησ€, νεανικως των όλιγαρ- χι,κων και τω JIoμ^rηtif} φθονονντων καθατττόμενος. 64 B.C. 33. Χ. ΕτΓΐ δ€ Tiyv υττατίίαν ονχ ήττον νπο των αριστοκρατικών η των πολλών προήχθη δια την πόλιν i$ αίτιας αντω τοιαύτης συναγωνι- σαμενων. 63 B.C. T^s ύπο 2υλλα γενομένης μεταβολής περί την πολιτείαν εν άρχη μεν άτοπον φανεισης, τότε 8ε τοΐς πολλοί? υπό χρονον και σννηθείας η8η τινά κατάστασιν εχειν ον φανλην 8οκονσης,^ ήσαν οι τα παρόντα διασ€Ϊσαι και /mcTa^cTvai ζητονντες ίδιων €ν£κα πλεονεζιων)^ ον προς το βελ,τι- στον, ΤΙομπηιον μεν ετι τοΐς βασιΚενσιν εν Πόντω και * Αρμενία πολε- μονντος, εν Sk τη Ρώ/Ατ; μ,ι/δε/Αΐάς νφεστώσης προς τονς νεωτερίζοντας άζιομάχον ^ννάμεως. Ούτοι κορνφαΖον εΐχον άνδρα τολμητην και μεγάλο- πράγμονα και ποικιλον το ηθος,^ Αενκιον Κατιλιναν, ος αιτίαν ποτε προς άλλοις ά&ικημασι μεγάλοις έλαβε παρθενω σνγγεγονίναι θνγατρί,* κτεΐναι δ άδελφόν αυτοί) •^ και Βίκην επι τούτω φοβούμενος έπεισε ^υλλαν ως ετι ζωντα τον άνθρωπον εν τοΐς αποθανόν μίνοις προγράψαι,^ Τούτον ονν προστάτην οι πονηροί λαβόντες άλλας τε πίστεις άΧληλοις The chief extant narratives of the Conspiracy (c. 10-23) ^^e: Cic. in Cat; Sallust; Appian B. C. II. 2-7; Dio Cass. XXXVII. 24-42; Floras IV. i £f. Cp. also the special treatises cited in Jhe Bibliography and Sibinga I.e. pp. 48- 143. In the following those passages will be preferably cited which show that neither Sallust nor Cicero was directly consulted by Plutarch, noteworthy divergences from Cicero's statements in the Speeches proving by implication that the lost υπόμνημα was also not one of his sources. 1 (A) Cic. Brut. 90, 311, leges et iudicia constituta, recuperata res publica; de proscript. fil. fragm. ; ita legibus Sullae cohaerebat status civitatis ut 4iis solutis, stare ipsa non posset. 2 (D) Plutarch ignores the so-called first Catilinian conspiracy, so frequently referred to in Cicero's speeches, and narrated by Sail. 18; Dio XXV. 44. 8 (A) Sail. c. 5 animus audax, subdolus, varius; in Cat. II. 5 ; III. 17 tarn acer quam paratus, tam audax quam callidus etc. (D) Cat. I. 10, 26; II. 4, 7 ff. ; esp. Sail. c. 15 xi^c^Xo filio. * (A) Cic. in toga cand. fragm. : cum deprehendebare in adulteriis . . . cum ex eodem stupro tibi et uxorem et filiam invenisti ; [Q. Cicero] de pet. cons. 2, 9, educatus est in stupro sororis. δ (D) Cic. in Cat. I. 16, 13 ff., cum morte superioris uxoris . . . domum vacuefecisses, nonne etiam alio incredibili sceleri hoc scelus cumulasti ; III. 17. β piut. Sull 32, ίΖο^ε etc. Not elsewhere mentioned. PLUTARCH'S LIFE OF CICERO 75 Ιδοσαν καΐ καταθνσαντες ανθρωττον iyevaavro των σαρκών.^ ^ιίφθαρτο δ* νπ αντον ττοΧυ μ.€ρος της iv Trj ττόλίΐ νεότητας,^ η^ονας καί ττότονς καΐ γυναικών έρωτας act προ$€νονντος ίκάστω καΐ την cts ταύτα ^αττάνην άφ€ΐδώς τταρασκενάζοντος. Έττηρτο S η Τ€ Ύνρρηνία προς άπόστασιν 6\η καΐ τα πολλά της €ντ6ς *Αλπ€ων Γαλατίας. Ε7Γΐσφαλ€στατα δ* η νώμη προς μεταβολην είχε Slol την iv ταϊς ουσίαις άνωμαΧίαν, των μεν €v 8όζη μάλιστα και φρονηματι κατ επτωχεν μίνων εις θέατρα και δείπνα και φιλαρ)^ίας και οικονομίας, των δέ πλούτων εΙς άγεννεΐς και ταπεινούς σννερρνηκότων ανθρώπους, ώστε μικρας ροπής δεισ^αι τα πράγματα και παντός είναι τον τοΧμησαντος εκστησαι την ποΧιτείαν αύτ^ν νφ αυτής νοσούσαν,^ XI. Ου μην άλλα βουΧόμενος 6 Κατιλινας Ισχυρόν τι προκαταΧαβεΐν ορμητήριον υπατείαν μετηει • και Χαμπρος ην ταΐς εΧπίσιν * ώς Γαίω Άντων/ω συνυπατεύσων, avSpi καθ αυτόν μεν οϋτε προς το βεΧτιον οϋτε προς το χεΐρον ηγεμονικω, προσθηκτ) δ άγοντος έτερου δυνάμεως εσομενω. Ταύτα δ^ των καλών και άγαμων οΐ πΧεΐστοι προαισθόμενοι τον Ιίικερωνα προηγον επι την υπατείαν και του Βημου Βεζαμενου προ- θύμως 6 μεν Κατιλινας εζεπεσε, Κικέρων δε και Γάϊος Αντώνιος ηρε- θησαν. Καίτοι των μετιόντων 6 Κικέρων μ/άνος ην ε^ ίττπικου πατρός, ου βουΧευτοΐ), γεγονώς.^ XII. Καί τα μεν περί Κατιλιναν εμεΧΧεν ετι, τους ποΧΧονς λανθά- νοντα, προάγωνες δε μεγάλοι την Κικερωνος υπατείαν ε^εδε^αντο.* Τούτο μεν γαρ οι κεκωλυμενοι κατά τους Συλλα νόμους, άρχειν,^ οϋτ^ ασθενείς οντες ουτ ολίγοι, μετιόντες αψ\ας ε^ημαγώγουν, πολλά της ^ύλλα τυραννιδος άληθη μεν καί δίκαια κατηγορουντες, ου μην εν δεοντι 1 (D) * Sail. Cat. 22 ; (A) Dio XXXVII. 30. 2 (A) in Cat. I. 6, 13; II. 9, 20; Sail. Cat. 14, 5. 8 (D) Sail. Cat. 28, 40 ; Cic. Cat. I. 2, 5 ; II. 8 ff . ; pro Cad. I.e. App. B. C. II. 2. Agreement in substance, but not in details. * (D) Sail. 14, Antonium quem sibi collegam speraret^ has nothing in com- mon with the Greek except the verb ; nor is the epigrammatic characterization of Antonius suggested by anything in the Latin. δ Ascon. Ped. in toga cand. p. 88 ff. solus Cicero ex competitoribus eques- tri erat loco natus. Cicero attaches no importance to this, e.g. de leg. agr. I. 9, 27, equestri ortum loco consulem videt quae vitae v\2i facillime viros bonos ad honorem . . . perducat, but boasts that he was elected as a homo novus. Cp. esp. de leg. agr. II. i, 3, me perlongo intervallo prope memoriae temponim nostrorum primum hominem novum consulem fecistis etc. ; pro Mur. 8, 17; pro Plane. 27, 67. ^ de off. II. 23 ff. ; in Pis. 2,4; de leg. agr. II. 3, 8. ■^ The speech de proscriptorum fill is (Cic. in Pis. 2) followed the de lege agraria and ^q pro Rabirio^ here omitted. Cp. Cic. ad Att. II. i, 3. 76 APPENDIX I την ΊΓθ\ιτ€ΐαν ovSk συν καχρω klvovvt€^,^ tovto Sk νόμους €ΐσηγον ol ^ημΛρχοί Ίτρο^ την ■ αντην νποθ^σιν,^ ^€Κ(ΐΒαρχίαν καθιστάντ€ς αυτο- κρατόρων ανδρών, οίς Ιφατο πόσης μλν 'Ιταλία?, πάσης 8e ουρίας καΐ δσα δια ΤΙομτΓηιου ν€ωστΙ προσώριστο κυρίονς οντάς πωλ€ΐν τα δημόσια, Kpivtiv ονς Βοκοίη, φυγάδας €κβόλλ€ίν, συνοίκιζαν iroXcts, χρηρΛτα λαμβάνων €Κ του ταμιύου, στρατιώτας τρ€φ€ΐν και KaraXeyciv ' δττόσων BioivTO, Διο καΐ t ΙΟ, magno me metu liberabis, dummodo inter me atque te murus intersit (and similarly in Cat. 1. 7, i6); but the antithesis (X67ots. . . βττλοΐϊ) is not found in the Ciceronian passages. 2 * (D) in Cat. II. 2, 4, parum comitatus; 12, 27; Sail. c. 32, cum paucis. Plutarch throughout identifies the first and second Catilinian speeches ! 8 (A) App. B. C. II. 3; Dio XXXVII. ^Z- 4 (A) Cic. pro Mur. 39, 84 ; in Cat. II. 5, 1 1 ; Sail. c. 36 ; Dio XXXVII. 33, 3. δ The apocryphal character of the story is made evident by the fact that the name Sura occurs much earlier, e.g. Liv. XXII. 31 (217 B.C.). β The same oracle is recorded in Cic. /;/ Cat. III. 4, 9; Sail. c. 47 ; Liv. Perioch. 102; Veil. Pat. II. 34; App. ^. C. II. 2; Florus IV. 1,8, and alluded « to by Dio XXXVII. 34. ■^ Perhaps a reference to the first Catilinian conspiracy. PLUTARCH'S LIFE OF CICERO 8 1 40. XVIII. OvScv ovv iirevoiL μικρόν 6 AerrXos η άσημ,ον, αλλ' ihi^OKTO την βονλην άπασαν άναιρεΐν των τ* άλλων πολιτών οσονς SvvaiTO, την ττόλιν δ' αντην καταττιμπράναι, φύ^^σθαί τ€ μ,ηΒενος η των ΤΙομπηιου τέκνων ταύτα 8' ΙζαριτασαμΙνον^; €χ€ΐν νφ* αντοΐς καΐ φνΧάτ- TCtv ομ,ηρα των wpos ΊΙομπηϊον διαλυσ€ων • ηΒη yap Ιφοίτα ττολύς \6yo^ καΧ βέβαιος virkp αυτόν κατιόντος άττο της μεγάλης στρατειας.^ Και νν$ μ\ν ωριστο προς την έπίθεσιν μία tiov Κρονιάδων,^ ζίφη δέ KaiDec.i9ff. στνππ€Ϊα καΐ θείον €ts την Τίεθηγου φέροντες οΐκίαν άπεκρυψαν.^ "Άνδρα? δέ ταίαντ€5 Ικατόν καΐ μέρη τοσαντα της *Τωμης ϊκαστον εφ* ίκάστω Βιεκληρωσαν,^ ως δι' ολίγον πολλών άψάντων φλεγοιτο παντα- χόθεν η πόλις. *Αλλοι δ€ τονς οχετονς εμελλον εμφράζαντες άπο- σφάττειν τονς ν^ρενομενονς.^ ΤΙραττομένων δ€ τοντων ετνχον επι^ημονντες Άλλοβρίγων * Svo ^ πρέσβεις, εθνονς μάλιστα δ^ τότε πονηρά πράττοντος και βαρννομενον την ήγεμονίαν» Ύοντονς οι περί Αεντλον ωφελίμονς ηγούμενοι προς το κινησοΛ και μεταβαλεΐν την ΤαΧατίαν εποιησαντο σννωμότας.^ Και γράμματα μεν αντοΐς προς την εκεΐ βονλην, γράμματα δέ προς Κατιλιναν Ιδοσαν,^ τη μεν νπισχνονμενοι την ελενθερίαν,^^ τον 8ε Καηλβναν παρακα- λονντες ελενΟερωσαντα τονς ^ονλονς επι την 'Έωμην ελανν&.ν,^^ 2υν- αΐΓ€στ€λλον δ€ μετ* αντων προς τον Κατιλίναν Ύίτον τίνα Κροτωνιάτι/ν ^ Cf. § 35 ^• This statement is also found only here. Both passages point to an authority very friendly to Pompey as the ultimate source of the narra- tive, possibly Livy. 2 * (D) Cic. in Cat. III. 4, 10, Lentulo et aliis Saturnalibus caedem fieri atque urbem incendi placeret, Cethego nimium id longum videretur; 7, 17. ^ * (D) in Cat. III. 5, 10, Cethegus qui paulo ante aliquid tamen de gladiis et sicis quae apud ipsum erant deprehensa, respondisset . . . se semper bonorum ferramentorum studiosum fuisse ; 3, 8. There is nothing corresponding to this in Sail. * (D) * in Cat. I. 4, 9 ; III. 4, 8. 6, 14; pro Sull. 18, 52 f. ; Sail. 43; App. B. C. II. 3 ; Dio XXXVII. 34, i, καταπρησαί re ro Αστυ (a corrupt passage). δ This detail is found only here. β The Allobrogian incident is related by Cic. in Cat. III. 2, 4-5, 13; Sail, c. 40-47 ; App. B. C. II. 4. The coincidences are mostly quite unavoidable, and, in any case, completely neutralized by divergences in details. ^ Their number is not elsewhere recorded. 8 (A) Cic. Cat, III. 2, 4 ; Sail. c. 40 is very circumstantial, but the revolt of Gaul is not a part of the plan. ^ Cic. I.e., but not in Sallust. 1° (D) No such promise is mentioned by Cic. or Sail., but perhaps implied in Cat. III. 9, 22. ^^ (D) Cic. I.e. III. 4, 8, se habere ad Catilinam mandata et litteras, ut servorum praesidio uteretur, ut ad urbem . . . cum exercitu accederet. This 82 APPENDIX I κομίζοντα τάς €7ηστολάς.^ Οία 8' ανθρώπων αστάθμητων καΐ μ€Τ οίνον τα τΓολλα και γυναικών άλΧήλοις έντνγχανόντων βουλεύματα ττόνω και λογισμψ νηφοντί καΐ συνίσει ττεριττιβ διώκων 6 Κικ€ρων, καΐ πολΧους μ\ν €χων Ιζωθεν €Ίησκοπουντας τα ιτραττόμενα και συνείιχνευοντας αύτω, τΓολλοΐς Bk των μετεχειν Βοκούντων τη^ συνωμοσία^ Βιαλεγόμενος κρύφα και πιστ€υων, Ιγνω την προς τους ζίνους κοινολογίαν'^ και νυκτο^ ive- 8ρ€νσας ζλαβε τον Κροτωνιάτι/ν και τα γράμματα συνεργούντων άΒηλως των ^Αλλοβρίγων. Dec. 3 XIX. *Άμα δ' ήμερα βουλήν άθροίσας €ΐς το της ^Ομονοίας Ιερον €$αν€γνω τα γράμματα και των μηνυτών Βιηκουσεν. "Έίφη 8k και ^iXavos Ιούνιος άκηκοεναι τινας ίίεθηγου λέγοντος^ ως νιτατοί τ€ τρεις και στρατηγοί τετταρες άναιρεΐσθαι μελλουσι.^ Τοιαύτα δ' έτερα και Π€ΐσων, άνηρ υτ^ατικός, εισήγγειλε,^ Γαιο? 8k 2ουλπικιο$, εΙς των στρατηγών, επι την οικίαν ττεμφθείς του Ί^εθηγου ττοΛΛα μkv εν αυτή βέλη και οττλα, TrXcidrta Sk ζίφη και μαχαίρας εν ρε νεοθηκτους άπάσας.^ Ύελος δέ τω Κροτωνιάττ; ψηφισαμενης αδ€ΐαν επι μηνύσει της βουλής εξελεγχθείς 6 Αεντλος άπωμόσατο την άρχην (στρατηγών γαρ ετύγχανε), και την περιπόρφυρον εν Ty βουλή καταθεμενος Βιηλλαξεν €σ^τα τη συμφορά πρεπουσαν.^ Ου το? μεν ουν και οι συν αυτω παρεδόθησαν εις αδεσ/ΑΟν φυλακην τοις στρατηγοις/ inc»t. 41. *Ηδι; δ' εσπέρας ούσης και του Βημου περιμενοντος αθρόου, (Dec. 3) προελθων 6 Κικέρων, και φράσας το πράγμα τοις πολίταις και προπεμ- φθείς, παρήλθεν εις οικίι,ν φίλου γειτνιωντος,^ is followed by details which Plut. had given earlier (§ 39 oracle, § 40 burning of the city), Lentulus being there represented as acting independently. In Cic. and Sail. c. 44 these facts are stated as the confession of Volturcius, in Plut. the latter's evidence is associated only with the exposure of Lentulus. 1 * (D) Cic. I.e. T. Volturcius ; Sallust : T. Volturcium quendam Crotoniensem ; Appian: BovXroiJ/D/ctoi' 6.vhpa. Κροτωριάτηρ; Florus: Volturcius. The name given by Plut. is, therefore, not based upon Cic. or Sallust. 2 * (D) This is also completely at variance with Cic. I.e. and Sail. c. 41 (and Appian). According to the latter, moreover, the ambassadors reveal the plot to Q. Fabius Sanga, who in turn informs Cicero, but Sanga is not mentioned either in Cic. or in Plutarch. 8 (D) According to Cic. Cat. III. 3, 7, he opened the letters in the presence of witnesses before submitting them to the Senate. * These details are not mentioned elsewhere. δ * Agrees with Cic. Cat. III. 3, 6. 5, 10 except as to the wo^iJktovs aTrOLCtk^. 6 (D) See p. 22. ■^ (D) * Sail. c. 47 Lentulus itemque ceteri in liberis custodiis habeantur. Five custodians are mentioned, but there is no praetor among them 1 8 This fact is not elsewhere mentioned. PLUTARCH'S LIFE OF CICERO 83 42. CTTCt την Ικύνον γυναΐκ€5 κατύχον itpoi'i απόρρητοι^ οργιάζονσαι Oeovf ην 'Ρω/Ααϊοι μ€ν άγαθην, ^ΈλΧην€ζ Sk Τνναικ^ίαν ονομΑΐζουσι, Θΰ€ται ^ δ' αντ-β κατ* ivLavrov iv rrj οΙκί€[. τον νπάτον δια γυναικός η μητρός αντον, των Εστιάδων παρθένων τταρονσων. Είσίλ^ων ουν 6 Κικφων Kaff αυτόν, ολίγων τταντάττασιν αντω ιταρόντων, Ιφρόντιζ^ν οττω^ χρησαιτο τοις άνδράσι. Ύήν τε yap άκραν καΐ ιτροσηκονσαν α^ικηρυασι τηλι- κούτοις τιμωρίαν εζενλαβεΐτο και κατώκνει δι €?ri€iKCiav ηθονς αμα καΐ ώς μη ^οκοίη της ^ίζονσιας άγαν Ιμφορεισθαι και τηκρως έττεμβαίνειν άνδράσι yevei τ€ πρώτοις και φίλους δυνατούς iv τη πόλει κεκτημένοις ' μαΧακώτερόν Τ€ ^ησάμενος ωρρώδ€ΐ τον απ αυτών κινδυνον. Ου γαρ άγαπησειν μετριώτερόν τι θανάτου παθόντας, άλλ cis άτταν άναρρα- γησεσθοΛ τόλμης τη πάλαια κακία, νβαν opyrjv προσλαβόντας • αυτός τε ^όζειν άνανδρος και μαλακός, οΰδ* άλλως ^οκων εντολμότατος civai τοις ΤΓολλοΓς. XX. Ταύτα του Κικ€ρωνος διαποροΰντος γίνεται τι ταΐς γυναιξί σημεΐον θυονσαις, Ο yap βωμός, η^η του ττυρος κατακεκοιμησθαι ^οκουντος, εκ της τέφρας και των κεκαυμένων φλοιών φλόγα πολλην άνηκε και λαμπράν» Υφ* ι^ς αί μεν άλλαι διεπτοι^^ι^σαν, αί δ Upai παρθένοι την του Κικ€ρωνος γυναίκα TcpcvTiiav €Κ€λ€υσαν η τάχος χωρεΐν προς τον άνδρα και κ£λ€υ€ΐν οΓς εγνωκεν εγχειρεΐν υπ^ρ της πατρίδος, ως μέγα προς τε σωτηρίαν και δο^αν αύτω τ^ς θεού φως διδοικη/ς. 43. Ή Sk Ύερεντία (και γαρ ούδ άλλως ην πρα,ειά τις ούδ' άτολμος την φύσιν, άλλα φιλότιμος γυνή και μάλλον, ως αυτός φησιν 6 Κικ€ρων,^ των πολιτικών μεταλαμβάνουσα παρ* εκείνου φροντίΒων η μεταδίδουσα τών οικιακών εκείνω) ταυτά τε προς αυτόν εφρασε και παρώ- ίυν€ν €πι τους άνδρας • * 1 On this prodigy and the deliberations of Cicero, see p. 18. The latter are attributed to him by Sail. c. 46 on the eve of the exposure^ and he ignores the alleged portent : anxius erat, dubitans, in maxumo scelere tantis civibus deprehensis, quid facto opus esset; poenam illorum sibi oneri, impunitatem perdundae rei publicae fore credebat. IgUur confirmato animo vocaii ad sese iubet Lentulufti etc. Sallust does not state the reason for this * confirmatio animi.* Did he perhaps have in mind the alleged omen? If so, his well- known radical views on the subject of prodigia might have been the cause for not mentioning it. 2 Wherever this remark may have been made, it cannot have occurred in the ύττόμνημΛ rrjs inrareLas for the reasons given on p. 19 f. Hence the entire story cannot have been taken by Plut. from this source. 8 (D) On the other hand, Cicero {in Cat. IV. 2, 3) says she was exani- mata. 84 APPENDIX I 44. ομ/ήως Sc icat Κόϊντος 6 ά&€Χφ6ζ ^ καΐ των άνο φιλοσοφίας ίταύρων ΊΙόπΚιος NiyiSto?,^ ω τα TrXeUrra καΐ μ€γιΧΓτα ιταρα τας νολχη- κας €χρητο νράζας, D«e. i 45. Τ^ δ* νστ€ραία γενομένων iv σνγκλ-γτω λάγων irepl τιμωρίας των άν^ρων,^ ο ττρωτος ερωτ-φείς γνωμην ΣιΛανος ehre την εσχάτην Βίκην Sovvcu. Ίτροσηκαν ά,-χθεντας cts το ^σμωτηριον. Και προσετίθεντο TOvTif πάντες εφεζης μέχρι Ταιον Καύταρος τον μετά ταντα Βικτάτορος γενομένου. 46. Τότε Sk νέος ων ετι καΐ τας ν ρωτάς έχων ττ^ς ανζησεως αρχάς, ήθη 0€ TTj ΤΓοΜτεια καχ ταις εΑΐΓΚΤίν εις εκ€ΐνην την οόον εμρερηκως, y τα 'Ϋωμαίων εις μοναρχίαν μετεστησε ιτράγματα, τους μίεν άλλους ελάνθανε,^ τω 3c Ιί,ικερωνι ΊτολΧας μεν υποψίας,^ λαβην δ* ον^μίαν εις ελεγχον ΊταρεΒωκεν, άλλα και λεγόντων ην ενίων άκονειν, ως εγγνς ελθων άλωνοΛ Βιεκφ-νγοι τον άνδρα. Ttv€9 Sc φασι"* τταριΒεΐν εκόντα κα\ ΊΓαραλητειν την κατ* εκείνον μηννσιν φόβω των φίλων αντον καΐ της δυνάμεως • τταντί γαρ etvot προ8ηλον, οτι μάλλον αν εκείνοι γενοιντο προσθήκη Καίσαρι σωτηρίας η Καίσαρ εκείνοις κολάσεως. 47, XXI. 'Eirct δ* ονν η γνώμη ττεριηλΟεν εις αντόν, άναστάς άττεφηνατο μη θανατονν τονς άνδρας, άλλα τάς ονσίας ciyai Βημοσίας, αντονς δ' άτταχθέντας εις πόλεις της *Ιταλ«ΐ5, as αν SoKy ^ικερωνι^^ τηρεΐσθαι Βε^εμ^νονς, άχρι αν ου καταπολεμηθώ KartXtvas.^ Ονσης δ€ 1 This is not confirmed by any extant utterances of Cicero and may have been based upon the i/^ petitione consulatus, 2 Cp. Plut. An sent sit ger. 27 Κικέρων αύτόί ώ μο\6Ύ€ΐ τά κάλλκττα καΐ μΑ^ιστα των συμβου\€υμάτωρ oU 6ρθω$ ένυπατεύων τήν πατρίδα δι^σω^ε μετά Ποπλίου "Siyidiov του φϊΚοσόφον συνθεΐναι. This exaggerated eulogy of one of Cicero's collaborators in crushing the conspiracy is quite un-Ciceronian. Cp. ad fatn. (ad Nigidium) IV. 13, 2, per me quondam te socio defensa res publica. The second-hand character of the passage seems indicated by the imperfect. 3 Cp. Cic. in Cat. IV ; Sail. c. 50-52 ; Veil. Pat. II. 35, i ; Plut. Cat. Min. 22; App. B. C. II. 5f.; Dio XXXVII. 35 f . ; Florus IV. i, 10. * Cp. p. 23. ^ Cp. Suet. Cae's. 9, Cicero in quadam ad Axium epistola referens, Cae- sarem in consulatu confirmasse regnum de quo aedilis cogitarat. β Sail. c. 49 defends Caesar against the charge. It is repeated by Plut. Crass. 15; and Suet. Caes. 9 (the first conspiracy). 14. "^ (A) Plut. Caes^y. 8 This is not expressly mentioned in Cic. or Sail, but in App. B. C. II. 6. On the other hand, they record some parts of Caesar's motion not found in Plutarch. ® (A) App. B. C. II. 6 μ^χρι Κοτιλίνο καταττολεμηθέντο^. (D) Cic. Cat. IV vincula . . . et ea sempitema etc.; Sail. c. 51 in vinculis habendos per municipia quae maxime opibus valent, neu quis de his postea ad senatum referat etc. PLUTARCH'S LIFE OF CICERO 85 της γνώμης €πΐ€ΐκονς και τον λέγοντος ^Ιπεΐν δυνατωτάτου, ροπην 6 Κ.ικ€ρων προσίθηκί-ν ον μικράν. Αυτός Τ€ γαρ άναστας Ιν^χ^ίρησ^ν (Ις inOat. €κάτ€ρον, τα μ€ν τη ττροτίρα, τα δέ τη γνώμη Υίαίσαρος συνίίττών, οΐ Τ€ (tec β) φίλοι ττάντες οΐόμενοι τω Κικ€/οωνι σνμφ^ρ€ΐν την Καίσαρος γνωμην (rJTTOv γαρ iv αΐτίαις €σ€σ^αι μη θανατώσαντα τους ανδ/οας) ηρονντο την δευτ€/οαν μάλλον γνωμην^ ωστ€ και τον 2ιλανόν αυ^ις μ€ταβαλΧόμ€νον ιταραιταΐσθαι και Acyciv, ως ούδ* αυτός «ιποι θανατικην γνωμην Ισγάτην γαρ αν^ρΐ βονλ^ντη 'Ρωμαίων «Γναι δικι/ν το δεσμώτη ριον.'^ Έ1ρημ€νης δέ της γνώμης πρώτος άντ€κρονσ€ν αντη Κάτλος Αοντάτιος •* clra Βεζάμενος Κάτων, και τω λόγω σφο^ρώς σνν€π€ρ€ίσας iiri τον ίίαίσαρα την ντΓονοιαν,* €ν€πλησ€ θνμον και φρονήματος την σνγκλητον, ωστ€ θάνατον καταψηφίσασθαι των ανδρών.^ 48. Tl€pi δε δημεύσεως χρημάτων Ινίστατο Καίσαρ, ονκ άζιών τα φιλάνθρωττα της €αντον γνώμης έκβαλόντας ivi χρησασθαι τω σκν- θρωτΓΟτάτω. Έιαζομενων δε πολλών Ιπεκαλείτο τονς Βημάρχονς. Οι δ* ονχ νπηκονον, άλλα Κικέρων αντος ενδούς άνηκ€ την περί δημεύσεως γνωμην.^ 49. XXII. *Έ1χώρ€ΐ δέ μετά της βονλης €πΙ τονς άνΒρας, Ονκ iv ταντω hk πάντες ήσαν, άλλος δ' άλλον εφνλαττε των στρατηγών.^ Και πρώτον €κ Παλατιού παραλαβών τον Αεντλον ηγε^ δια της ιεράς ohov και της αγοράς μέσης, τών μεν ηγεμονικωτάτων άντρων κνκλω περιεσπει- ραμενων και Βορνφορονντων,^ τον δέ ^ημον φρίττοντος τα δρώμενα και παριόντος σιωπή, μάλιστα δέ τών νέων, ώσπερ ιεροΐς τισι πατρίοις αριστοκρατικής τίνος εζονσίας τελεϊσθαι μετά φοβον κοί θάμβονς Βοκονντων. Αιελθών δέ την άγοράν και γενόμενος προς τω ^εσμωτηρίω 1 (D) This passage shows that Plut. never read the 4th Catilinian. 2 As the original could have left no doubt as to his meaning (cp. Sail. c. 51), this quibble cannot be authentic. It is again mentioned in Plut. Cat. Min. 22 and in Suet. Caes. 14, tantum metum iniecit asperiora suadentibus . . . ut Decimum Silanum . . . non piguerit sententiam suam . . . interpretatione lenire velut gravius atque ipse sensisset exceptam. Here, as in § 46 ^, Plutarch and Suetonius are the only authorities for these details. According to Sail, c. 50, Silanus merely changed his vote permotus oratione C. Caesaris. 8 He is mentioned at the head of a long list of men who advocated the death penalty before Cato. Cp. Cic. ad Att. XII. 21, i. * So App. B. C. I.e. σο.φω% άνακαλύπτων rijv is top Καίσαρα ίητοψίαν. * Cp. ad Att. I.e.; Sail. c. 53; Suet. Caes. 14. * This incident is related only in Plutarch. ^ The same error as in § 40 '', p. 82. Sail. c. 55 says that the condemned conspirators, with the exception of Lentulus, were taken to prison per prae- toresy but App. B. C II. 6 (καστον αύτων 6 KiKipwv is τό δεσμωτήριον yxrayayov. 8 Sail. I.e. ipse, praesidiis dispositis, in carcerem deducit. 86 APPENDIX I 7Γαρ€8ωκ€ τον AevrXov τω ^ημίω kcu προσ^ταζεν avcAciv εΐθ* €ζης τον Ιίέθηγον, και ο-υτω των άλλων Ικαστον καταγαγων άπ€κτ€ΐν€ν. Ορων δ€ ΤΓολλους ίτι τη^ συνωμοσίας iv άγορα σννεστωτας αθρόους και την μ€ν πρα£ιν άγνοουντας, την δέ νύκτα ττροσ μένοντας, ως Ιτι ζώντων των άντρων καΐ δυναμένων εζαρνασθηναι, φθεγζάμενος μέγα ττρος αυτούς '^''Έζησαν'' cittcv.^ Ούτω δέ ^Ρωμαίων οΐ Βυσφημ€Ϊν μη βουλόμενοι το τεθνάναι σημαίνουσιν, xlOiy ό ην €σ7Γ€ρα, και όι αγοράς avepaivev €ΐς την olklov, ουκ€Τΐ σιωτττ) των τΓολιτών ούδ€ τάζει Ίτροττεμπόντων αυτόν, άλλα ψωναΪ9 και κρότοις δ€;(θ/χ€νων, κα^ ους γένοιτο^ σωτήρα και κτίστην άνακαλούντων της ττατρίδος.^ Τα δ€ φωτά ττολλα κατίΧαμιτε τους στενωπούς, λα/χττάδια και δάδας ίστώντων ctti ταΐς θύραις, ΑΙ δ€ γυναίκες €κ των Τ€γών ητρουφαινον εττι τι/λ^ και ^cci του ανδρός ΰττο ττομττβ των αρίστων μόΧα σεμνως ανιόντος • ων οι ττλείστοι ττοΧεμους τ€ κατειργασμένοι μεγάλους και δια θριάμβων είσεληλακότες και ττροσ κεκτημένοι γην και ^άλατταν ουκ ολίγην εβά^ιζον άνομολογούμενοι ττρος αλλήλους, νολλοϊς μεν των τότε ηγεμόνων και στρατηγών ττλούτου και λαφύρων και δυνά/4.€ως χάριν οφείλειν τον 'Ρωμαίων Βημον, ασφαλείας Sk και σωτηρίας ενί μόνω Κικ€- ρωνι, τηλικουτον άφελόντι και τοσουτο}^ αύτου κινδυνον.* Ου γαρ το κωλυσοΛ τα πραττόμενα και κολάσαι τους πράττοντας ε^όκει θαυμαστόν, αλλ ότι μεγιστον των πώττοτε νεωτερισμών ούτος ελαχίστοις κακοις άνευ στάσεως και ταραχής κατεσβεσε} 1 This graphic description is unquestionably of one piece and hence neces- sarily taken from one and the same authority, highly favorable to Cicero. But that this source was the υπόμνημα^ as is universally• assumed, is refuted by ^^iiaaPf which clearly proves that Plutarch read the word vixerunt in a Latin narrative, in which he must also have found the explanation of the euphemism. That Appian, though he exhibits many noteworthy coincidences with Plutarch in these particular chapters, did not consult this biography or a common third source, is made evident by the words: rots kv ayopg, παροδεύων έσήμηνεν, Οτι τεθνασιν. 2 ad Att. IX. ΙΟ, 3, me quem nonnulli conservatorem istius urbis, quem parentem esse dixenint ; luv. VIII. 243 Roma parentem, Roma patrem patriae Ciceronem libera dixit; App. B. C II. 7 ^iri ipy^ hih. στόματος fjv καΐ σωτ^ρ έδόκεί περιφανών ά.νο\\υμένχι τζ πατρίδι Ύεν^σθαι, χάριτέί re fjaav αύτφ τταρά. τ^ν 4κκ\ησίαν καΐ εύφημίαι ιτοικίλαι. ^ Esp. in Cat, IV. 10, 21, sit Scipio ille clarus . . . PauUus . . . Marius . . . Pompeius . . . erit inter horum laudes aliquid loci nostrae gloriae etc. * E.g. Cic. in Cat. III. 10, 23, erepti estis ex crudelissimo . . . interitu, erepti sine caede, sine sanguine, sine exercitu, sine dimicatione, togati me uno togato duce et imperatore vicistis. 6, 15; pro Flacco 40, 102; Phil. XIV. 8, 24. PLUTARCH'S LIFE OF CICERO 8/ 50. Kat γαρ τον ΚατιΧίναν oi ιτλεΐστοι των σννερρνηκότων προς αυτόν αμα τω πνθ4σ•θαι τα περί AcvtAov καΐ Kc^iyyov iyKaToXiirovTes ωχοντο • ^ και μ€τα των σνμμεμ,ενηκότων αντω Βιαγωνισάμενος προς Αντώνιον αυτός τ€ Βιεφθάρη και το στρατόπε^ον,^ 51. XXIII. Ου μην αλλ ήσαν οί τον KcKe /οωνα παρ€σκ€ναχτμΙνοι κοί λέγειν €πΙ τούτοις και ποΐ€Ϊν κακώς, €χοντ€ς ηγεμόνας των εΙς το μέλλον αρχόντων Καισα/οα μεν στρατηγονντα, Μετελλον 8ε και Έηστίαν ^ημαρχονντας,^ Οι την αρχήν παραλαβόντες, ετι τον Κ,ικερωνος ημέρας Dec. 29 ολίγας άρχοντος, ουκ ειων ^ημηγορεΐν αυτόν, αλλ νπερ των εμβόλων βάθρα θεντες ου παρίεσαν οΰδ επετρεπον λέγειν, αλλ' εκελευον, εΐ βον- λοιτο, μόνον περί της άρχϊ}ς άπομόσαντα καταβαχνειν, Ί^ακείνος επι τούτοις ως ομόσων προήλθε • και γενομένης αντω σιωπής ωμνυεν ου τον πάτριον, αλλ* ίδιον τίνα και καινόν όρκον, ^ μην σεσωκεναι την πατριέ και ^ιατετηρηκεναι την ηγεμονίαν, Έπώμννε Sk τον όρκον αυτω συμπάς 6 δί}/Αθ9.* *Εφ όίς ετι μάλλον ο Τ€ Καίσαρ οι τε Βημαρχοι χαλεπαι- νοντες αλλάς τε τω KiKC /οωνι ταραχας εμηχανωντο, και νόμος υπ αυτών είσηγετο καλεΐν ΤΙομπηϊον μετά της στρατιάς, ώς δή καταλυσοντα την Ιίικερωνος Βυναστείαν.^ 1 (Α) Sail. C. 57 postquam in castra nuntius pervenit . . . de Lentulo et Cethego ceterisque . . . supplicium sumptum, plerique quos ad bellum spes rapinarum aut novarum rerum studium illexerat, dilabuntur. Die Cass. XXXVII. 39 iirel δέ ίκείνόρ re άιτολωλότα ίττύθετο καΐ των σννόντων οΐ συχνού^ μεθίσταμένου^ διά τουτ ζσθετο etc. 2 Sail. c. 57-61 ; Αρρ. Β. C. Π. 7 ; Die Cass. XXXVII. 39• 8 (A) pro Sestio 5, 11, tribunorum plebis novorum, qui turn extremis diebus consulatus mei res eas quas gesseram vexare cupiebant, and Schol. Bob. ad loc. (D) Sail. c. 43 correctly speaks of the oppostion of Bestia at an earlier period : L. Bestia, tribunus plebis, contione habita, quereretur de actionibus Ciceronis etc. The two tribunes for 62 were Metellus and Cato (see below). Bestia was tribune in 63, and had nothing to do with the incident of the oath. (A) ad/am. V. 2, 6, quern (sc. Metellum) ego cum comperissem omnem sui tribunatus conatum in meam pemiciem parare atque meditari. ^ ad /am. V. 2, 7, cum Ule (Metellus) mihi nihil, nisi ut iurarem, permit- teret, magna voce iuravi verissimum pulcherrimumque iusiurandum quod populus item magna voce me vere iurasse iuravit ; in Pis, 3, 6, cum in contione abiens magistratu dicere a tribuno pi, prohiberer quae constitueram, cumque is mihi tantum modo ut iurarem permitteret, sine ulla dubitatione iuravi rem publicam atque hanc urbem mea unius opera esse salvam, populus Romanus . . . meum iusiurandum . . . approbavit; de rep. I. 4, 7; Dio XXXVII. 38, i. ^ Plut. Cat. Min, 26 f. This law is not mentioned elsewhere, nor do we hear of Caesar's opposition to Cicero at this time (cf. Dio ΧΧΧΛ^ΙΙ. ii), but cp. pro Sull. 7, 21, hie ait se ille regnum meum ferre non posse . . . consulatus. 88 APPENDIX I Αλλ* ην οφελ,ος μέγα τω Κικ€/9ωνι και irdarj rrj ττόλει Βημαφχων τότε Κάτων καΐ τοΐς εκείνων νολιτενμασιν άττ* Ισης μλν εζονσίας, μείζονος δέ ^όζης άντιτασσομενος. Τά τε yap άλλα ρα^ίως έλυσε, και την Κικ€- ρωνος νττατείαν ούτως ηρε τω λόγω μεγαΧην ^ημηγορησας, ώστε τιμάς αντω των ττώποτε μεγίστας ψηφίσασθαι ^ και ιτροσαγορενσαι πάτερα πατρίδος. ΤΙρώτω yap εκείνω δοκ€ΐ τοντο καθνττάρζαι, Υίάτωνος αυτόν όντως εν τω Βημω ττροσαγορεύσαντος.^ 52. XXIV. Και μεγιστον μεν Ισχνσεν εν Trj ττόΧεί τότε, ττολλοΐ? δ' εττίφθονον εαντον εττοίησεν απ ουδενό? έργον ττονηρον, τω δ* €παιν€ΐν aci και μεγαλννειν αντος εαντον υπό πολλών δυσ;(€ραινό/Α€νο9. Ουτ€ γαρ βονλην οντε δ^/χον οντε Βικαστήριον ην σννελθεΐν, εν ω μη Κατιλιναν «δα θρνΧονμενον άκονσαι και Λεντλον.* Άλλα και τα βίβλία τελεντων κατεττλησε και τα συγ- γράμματα των εγκωμίων* και τον λόγον ήδιστον όντα και χάριν ΙΙχοντα πλείστην επαχθή και φορτικόν εποίησε τοΧς άκροωμενοις,^ ωσπερ τινός άει κηρός αντω της αηδίας ταύτης προσονσης. "Ομως δ€, καίπερ όντως άκράτω φιλοτιμία σννών, άττηλλακτο τον φθονεΐν ετεροις,^ άφθονώτατος ων εν τω τονς προ αντον και τονς καθ* credo, mei etc. ; in Vat. 9, 23, qui nos . . . tyrannos vocas ; ad Att. I. 16, 10^ quousque, inquit (sc. Clodius), hunc regem feremus ? in Cat. I. 9, 22. 11, 28. 1 ad/am. (ad Catonem) XV. 4, 11. 2 Cp. § 49 2; Plin. N. H. VII. 30, 31, Salve (M. TuUi) primus omnium parens patriae appellate. App. B. C. II. 7, KarwiOS δ' a.ro Sest. 57, 121 ; in Fis. 3, 6, Q. Catulus bestowed the title upon him in the senate. He nowhere mentions Cato in con- nection with it, nor does he say that he was the first who was so honored. Inpro Rab. 10, 27 it is applied to Marius, by Li v. I. 16 to Romulus, V. 49 to Camillus. 8 (A) Brut, ad Att. I. 17, i, non omnibus horis iactamus Idus Martias, similiter atque ille Nonas Decembres suas in ore habet ; * Sen. de brev. vit. 5, i ; Dio Cass. XXXVII. 38; XXXVIII. 12. * (A) See p. 39 and e.g. pro Suit. 9, 26. 11, 33. 29, 82 ; in Pis. i, 3. 3, 7 ; Phil. II. 5, II; pro Flacco 40, 102; in Cat. III. 11, 26; IV. 10, 20 ff.; ad Att. I. 19, 6; de dom. 35, 93. δ (A) Schol. Bob. pro Plane, p. 270 epistolam non mediocrem ad instar voluminis scriptam quam Pompeio in Asiam de rebus suis in consulatu gestis miserat Cicero, aliquanto, ut videbatur, insolentius scriptam ut Pompei stoma- ch um non mediocriter commoveret quod quadam superbiore iactantia omnibus se gloriosis ducibus anteponeret. β (A) Cic. Phil. X. i, i, declarasti . . . quod ego semper sensi neminem alterius qui suae confideret, virtuti invidere. (D) Tac. Dial. 25 et ipsum Ciceronem credo solitos et invidere et livore . . . adfici. B.C. PLUTARCH'S LIFE OF CICERO 89 αντόν ανδ/οα? Ι-γκωμιάζαν, cos Ικ των συγγραμμάτων λαβεΐν Ιστι. Πολλά δ* αυτοί) καΐ άτΓθμνημον€νονσιν' οίον irepl * Αριστοτέλους, OTL γρνσίον ττοταμος €Ϊη ρέοντος ,^ και ttc/oi των Πλάτωνος διαλόγων, ώς τον Αίός, €1 λόγω χρησθαι ιτίφνκ^ν, ούτω Βιαλεγομίνον,^ Τον δέ ©co- φραστον tliuOet τρνφην ιδίαν άττοκαλειν.^ Hcpi δέ των Δημοσθένους λόγων ερωτηθείς, τίνα Βοκοίη καλλιστον «Γναι, τον μεγιστον cIttc* Καίτοι TIV6S των προσποιούμενων ^ημοσθενίζειν επιφύονται φωνβ του ίίίκερωνος, ην προς τίνα των εταίρων Ιθηκεν εν επιστολτ) γ ρ άψας, ενιαχου των λόγων άπονυστάζειν τον Δημοσθένη'^ των δέ μεγάλων και θαυμαστών €7Γαινων, ots ττολλα^^οΰ^ χ^ρηται περί του ανδρός, και οτι περί ους μάλιστα των ίδιων €σπουδασ€ λόγων, τους κατ* 'Αντωνίου, ΦιλιτΓττικούς επεγραψεν, άμνημονουσι. Των δέ κατ* αυτόν «νδόίων άπο λόγου και σοφίας ουκ εστίν ουΒείς, ον ουκ εποίησεν εν^οζότερον η λ^γων η γράφων ευμενώς περί εκάστου, Υίρατίππω δέ τω Τίεριπατητικω ^ιεπράζατο μεν Τωμαίω γενέσθαι παρά Καίσαρος άρχοντος η^η, ^ιεπράζατο δέ την εξ * Αρείου πάγου 48-44 βουλην ψηφίσασθαι και δίΐ/^^ναι μενειν αυτόν εν 'Α^ι/ναις και διαλ€- γεσ^αι τοις νβοις ως κοσ/υιουντα την ττόλιν. ΕτΓίστολαι δέ παρά του Κικ€ρωνος €ΐσί προς ϋρώ^ην, έτερα ι h\ προς τον υιό ν,^ εγκελευομενου συμφιλοσοφειν Κρατίττπω. Τοργίαν δε τον ρήτορα αιτιώμενος εις τ^δονας και ττότους προάγειν το μειράκιον άπελαύνει της συνουσίας αυτού. Και σ\€^6ν αυτή τε των 'Ελληνικών μία και δευτέρα προς Πέλοπα τον Βυ^άντιον εν οργή τινι γεγραπται, τον μεν Τοργίαν^ αυτού προσηκόντως επικόπτοντος, ειπερ ην φαύλος και ακόλαστος, ηπερ ε^όκει, προς δε τον ΊΙελοπα μικρολογου μενού και μεμψιμοιρονντος 1 (Α) Cic. Acai/. Prior II. 38, 119» veniet flumen orationis aureum fundens Aristoteles. 2 (A) Cic. Brut. 31, 121, lovem sic, aiunt philosophi, si Graece loquatur, loqui. ^ Not found among the extant references to Theophrastus in Cicero. * (D) Plin. Epist. I. 20 applies this to Cicero himself : cuius oratio optima fertur esse quae maxima. δ Cp. p. 40 and Quint. XII. i, 22, neque ipsi Ciceroni D. videtur satis esse perfectus quem dormitare interdum dicit; Cic. Orat. 29, 104, ut usque eo . . . morosi simus ut nobis non satisfaciat ipse Demosthenes. β E.g. Brut. 9, "ifi. 37. 84 ; Orat. 2. 7. 26. 31. 70 ; de opt. gen. 2. 5 ; Tusc. Disp. V. 36 ; ad Att. XV. i b. ■^ (A) Not extant, but cp. ad/am. XII. 16 (Trebonius ad Cic.) ; XVI. 21, 3 £f. (Cic. M. F. ad Tironem). ^ (A) ad fam. XVI. 21, 6, omnia postposui, dummodo praeceptis patris parerem, διαρρήδην enim scripserat, ut eum dimitterem statim. i 90 APPENDIX I ωσπ€ρ άμ€\ησαντα rt/ias τινας αντω και ψηφίσματα ττα/οά Ένζαντίων γ€ν€σθαί, XXV. Ταυτά Τ€ δ^ φιλότιμα^ και το νολΧάκις €ναιρόμ€νον τον λόγου τ-β Βεινότητι το irpitrov τΓροί€σθαι, 53. Μουνατιω μ€ν γάρ ίγοτ€ σννηγορησας^ ως αποφυγών την Βίκην €Κ€Ϊνος eSccoKCV ίταΐρον αυτού 2α)^νον, οϋτω λ eye rat Ίτροττ^σύν υπ οργής 6 Κικέρων, ωστ ειπείν ' " 2υ γαρ εκείνην, ω Μου vane, την Βίκην απέφυγες δια σαυτόν, ουκ εμού πολύ σκότος εν φωτϊ τω Βικαστηρίω περιχεαντος / " ^ Μάρκον δ€ Κ,ράσσον εγκωμιάζων άπο του βημυατος ευημέρησε, και μεθ ημέρας αυ^ις ολίγας λοιΒορων αυτόν, ως εκείνος είπεν, " Ου γαρ €νταυ^α πρώην αύτο? ημάς εττηνεις;'* "Ναι," φηοΊ, ^^ μελέτης ένεκεν γυμνάζων τον λόγον εις φαυλην υπόθεσιν.^' Έιΐπόντος δε ποτέ του Κράσσου μη^ενα Κράσσον εν 'Ρώμη βεβιωκεναι μακρότερον εζηκονταετίας, εΐθ* ύστερον αρνουμένου και λέγοντος, " Τι δ' αν €γώ παθών τουτ* εΐπον;'' "*Ηιδ«9," Ιφι/, "*Ρω/ϋΐαιΌυς ηΒεως άκουσο- μένους και δια τουτ* ε^μαγώγεις,'^ Αρεσκεσθαι Sk του Κροσσού τοις Χτωΐκοΐς φησαντος, οτι πλουσιον clvai τον αγαθόν άποφαίνουσιν, ""Ορα, μη μάλλον,'^ εΤπεν, " δτι πάντα του σοφού λεγουσιν cTvai," Αιεβάλλετο δ' εις φιλαργυρίαν ο Κράσσος. Άπει 6ε του Κροσσού των τταιόων ο έτερος Αςιω ηνι όοκων όμοιος «ναι και δια τοΰτο ttJ μητρϊ προστριβόμενος αίσχραν επι τω *Αζίω ^ιαβολην ευδοκίμησε λόγον εν βουλή Βιελθων, ερωτηθείς 6 Κικέρων, τι φαίνεται [αύτω,] "^A^ios," είπε, "Κράσσου. " XXVI. ΜεΛΛων δε Κράσσο9 εις 2υριαν άπαίρειν εβουλετο τον Κικε- ρωνα ρ,αλλον αυτω φίλον η εχθρον εΓναι* και φιλοφρονουμενος εφη βονλεσθαι Βειπνησαχ παρ αυτω • κάκεΐνος ΰττεδείατο προθύμως, *Ολιγαις δ ύστερον ήμεραις περί ΒατινιΌυ φίλων τίνων εντυγχανόντων ως μνωμενου διαλύσεις και φιλίαν (y}v γαρ εχθρός), " Ου 8ηπου και Βατι- V109," ειττε, ** δειττν^σαι τταρ' ερ,οι βουλεται;" ΐΐρος μεν ουν Κ,ράσσον τοιούτος,^ Αυτόν δε τον Βατ ι νιο ν έχοντα χοιρό^ς εν τω τραχηλω και λέγοντα δικι/ν οιδουντα ρήτορα προσείπεν? * Ακουσας δ' δτι τεθνηκεν, είτα 1 (D) Quint. II. 17» Cicero se tenebras offudisse in causa Cluentii gloriatus est. Such divergences (see below p. 91'), the vagueness of iv tlpl δίκ^ (three times), the censorious object which these witticisms are made to subserve (§ 54), and the fact that not one of them is found in Cicero's extant writings, seem to. me to preclude Tiro's de iocis Ciceronis as Plutarch's source for c. 25-27. Cp. p. 3521. 2 On Cicero's relations to Crassus and Vatinius see ad/am. I. 9, 19 f. V. 19 f. 8 (A) See above § 32. \ PLUTARCH'S LIFE OF CICERO 91 μ€τα μικρόν ΊΓυθόμ€νος σαφώς, otl ζ-^' "Κακό? τοίννν άττοΚουτο κακώς ο ψ€νσάμ€νος." Έττει δ€ Καύτα/οι ψηφισαμν/ω την iv Κ.αμ7Γανία. χωράν κατανεμηθηναι Tots στρατίώταις πολλοί μλν ίΒνσχψαινον iv rrj βουλ-β, Α€νκιος δέ FcAAtos ομον τι ιτρεσβυτατος ών elirevy ως ον γενησεται τοντο ζώντος αντον, "Π€/5ΐ/ϋΐ«νω/Α€ν," cTttcv 6 ΚίΚ€ρων, ^* μακράν yap ονκ aireirax Γ€λλΐ05 ν7Γ€ρθ€σΐν»" ^ *Ην δ€ τις Οκταούϊος αΐτίαν €χων €Κ Κιβνης ytyovfvai • προς τοντον €v τινι δι'κτ; λiyovτa τον Ι^ικΙρωνος μη i^aKOvciv, "ΚΙαι μην ονκ €χ€ΐς/' €17Γ€, " ΤΟ ονς ατρνπητον. Μ€Τ€λλου δέ Νεττωτος απόντος, οτι πλείονας καταμαρτνρων αντβρηκεν tj σvvηyopωv σίσωκεν, " Oμoλoyω γαρ," «φι;, " 7Γΐστ€ω9 iv €μοΙ πλ€ον η εινοτητος eivai. Νεανίσκου δε τίνος αίτιαν €;(οντος Ιν π^ΛΚονντι φάρμακον τω ττατ/οι δεδωκεναι θρασννομενον και λ€yovτoςf οτι λοιδο/οι;σει τον Κικε/οωνα, " Τοΰτο," €φΐ7, ^^ πάρα σον ^ονλο /iai /χαλλον ^ ττλακουντα." ΠοττλιΌυ δε ^ι/στιου συνι/γορον /λέν αυτόν εν τινι δικτ; παραλα- βόντος μιθ* ετε/οων, αύτου δε ττάντα βονλομενον λέγειν και μηΒενΙ παρύντος ειπείν, ώς δ^λος ην άφιεμενος νπο των δικαστών η8η της ψηφον φερομένης ' " Χρω σήμερον '\ εφη, " τω καχρω^ ^ηστιε' μί λλειςy αρ ανριον ΐΒιώτης είναι." Πόττλιον δε Κώνσταν νομικον είναι βονλόμενον, οντά δ άμαθη και άψυ^, ττρός τίνα δικϊ/ν εκάλεσε μάρτυρα. Του δε μη^εν ειδεναι φάσκοντος, "*Ισως," εφι^, " δοκεις περί των νομικών ερωτασθοΛ.** Μετε'λλου δε Νεττωτος εν διάφορα τινι πολλάκις λέγοντος, " Τις σου πατήρ εστίν ; ** 6 Κικέρων, " 2οι ταυτι/ν," εφ?/, " τήν άπόκρισιν η μητηρ γαΧεπω- τεραν εποίησεν" Έδόκει δ' ακόλαστος η μητηρ είναι τον Νέπωτος, αυτός δε τις ενμετάβολος* Και ποτέ την ^μαργίαν άπολιπων άφνω προς Τίομπηϊον εζεπλενσεν ε*ς 'StVpvav, ειτ* εκείθεν επανηλθεν άλσγώτερον. Θάι/^ας δε Φιλαγρον ^ τόν Kafty- yrjfrqv επιμελεστερον επεστησεν αύτου τω τάφω κόρακα λίθινον. Και ό KiKe /οων *' Τουτ','* εφη^ *' σοφώτερον εποίησας • πετεσθαχ yap σε /χαλλον ^ λέγειν έδιδα^εν." Έπει δε Μβιρκος ^Αττπιος εν τινι δικι; προοιμυαζόμενος είπε φίλον αύτου δ£δ£^σ^χι παρΊ,σχεΐν επιμίλειαν κχι λογιότητα και πίστιν, " Ει^' όντως,** εφη, " σι&ηρόνς γέγονας άνθρωπος, ώστε μη8εν εκ τοσούτων ων ητησατο φίλος παρασχεΐν;** 54. XXVII. Το μεν ουν προς εχθρονς η αντίδικους σκώμμασι χριησθαι πικροτεροις δοκει ρητορικον είναι' το δ* οις ετυ;(ε προσκρονειν ένεκα τον 1 For two similar jests of Cicero, cp. Quint. VI. 3, 68. 84. 2 (A) Macrob. Satur. VII. 3, 7 ; Plut. Sym/>, 2, 4. 8 In Plut. Apophth. 7, Diodotus takes the place of Philagrus. 92 APPENDLX I ycXotov TTokv awrjye μίσος αυτω, Τ ράψω Se και τούτων oXiya.^ Μάρκον ^Akvlvlov Ιχοντα δΰο γαμβρούς φυγάδας ^Αδραστον €κάλ€ΐ. Αευκίου Sk Κόττα τιμητικην €χοντος 0Lp)(rjvj φιΧοινοτάτου δ' οντος^ υττα- TtLOLV μετιων ο Κ.ικ€ρων i^ufirfat, και των φίλων κύκλω τΓ^ρνστάντων, ως hrivfv, " *Ορθως φοβ€σθ€,** cTttc, " μη μοι γένοιτο χαΧεττος 6 τιμητής οτι ύδωρ πίνω,*' Έωκωνύα δ* άπακη/σας άγοντι μεθ* iavTW τρεις άμορφοτάτας θυγατέρας άνεφθεγζατο, " Φοίβου ΊΓΟΤ ουκ εωντος εσττειρεν τέκνα/* Μάρκου δ€ Τελλίου ^κονντος ουκ εζ ελευθέρων γεγονεναι, λαμπρή δ€ Ty φωνγ} KCU μεγάΧτ) γράμματα προς την σύγκλητον εζαναγνόντος, " Μ^ θαυμά- ζετε" (Ιπε, " και αυτός εΙς εστί των άναττεφωνηκότων,** *Ελγ€ι δ€ Φαυστος 6 '^,ύλλα του μαναργΊησαντος εν Ύώμη και πολλούς επι θανάτω προγράλΙ/αντος εν ^ανείοις γενόμενος και ττολλα της ουσίας δίασττα- θησας άπάρτιον προέγραψε, ταύτην εφη μάλλον αυτω την προγραφην άρεσκειν η την πατρωαν» 55. XXVIII. *ΈίΚ τούτων εγίνετο πόΚλοις επαγθης ' και οί μετά Κλωδιου συνέστησαν επ αυτόν άρ)(ην τουαύτψ λαβόντες.^ *Ην Κλώδιος άνηρ ενγενης^ τη μεν ηλικία, νέος, τω δ€ φρονηματι θρασυς και 62 «.ο. αυθάδης. Ούτος ^ ερων ϋομίΓηιας της Καίσαρος γυναχκος εΙς την οΐκίαν αυτού παρευσηλθε κρύφα, λαβών Ισ^^^Ό και σκενην ψαλτρίας* εθυον γαρ αι ywaikcs την απόρρητον εκείνην και άθεατον άν^ράσι θυσίαν εν τη του Καίσαρος οικία, και παρην άνηρ ουδ€ΐ9* άΛΛά μειράκων ων €τι και μήπω γενεύύν 6 Κλώδιος ήλπιζε λΐ7σ€σ^αι διαδυς προς την Πο/Λτπ/αιν μετά των γυναικών* Ώς δ* εισήλθε νυκτός εις οΐκίαν μεγάλην, ηπορεΐτο των διόδων * και πλανώμενον αυτόν ιδουσα Αυρηλίας θεραπαινις της Καίσαρος μτγτρος ητησεν όνομα. Φ^€γίασ^αι δ άναγκασ^έντο? εκείνου και φησαντος άκό• λουθον Πο/Ατη/ίας ζητεΐν "Αβραν τουνομα, συνείσα την φωνην ου γυναικείαν οΖσαν άνεκραγε και συν€κάλ€ΐ τας γυναίκας. Αί δ* άποκλείσασαχ τάς θύρας KCU πάντα ^ερευνώμεναι λαμβάνουσι^ τον Κλώδιον εις οίκημα παώίσκης, 1 Some of these jests were probably spurious. Cp. Cic. adfam. VII. 32, 2 ; IX. 3 ff. 2 On the Clodian Episode (ch. 28-35) ^" general, cp. Cic. ad Att. I. II ; ad Quint. I. II ; pro Alil., pro Sestioy pro Caelio, de domo^ or at. cum pop. grat. ; Dio Cass. XXXVII. 45 f. 51 ; XXXVIII. 12-30 ; XXXIX. 6-12. 19-23. 29-40. 44-57• I ^ote only important divergences or such passages as are peculiar to Plutarch or significant. 3 ad Att. I. 12 f. ; de dom. 40, 105; de harusp. 5, 8 ; Ascon. in Mil. p. 52 ; Dio XXXVII. 45. For the details Plut. is our only authority. ^ pro Sest. 54, 1 16, qui in mulierum coetum pro psaltria adducitur. δ (D) Contradicted by Cic. ad Att. I. 12, 4, per manus servulae servatum et eductum; de harusp. 21, 44. PLUTARCH'S LIFE OF CICERO 93 y (TwaaijkOt, καταπ€φ«τ/ότα. Του Sk ΐΓράγματος ττεριβοητον γ€νομ^νον Καίσαρ Τ€ την ΤΙομττψαν άφηκ€^ καΐ . . . Βίκην ασεβείας άττίγ/οάψατο τω ΚΛωούο. 56. XXIX. Κ6Κ€ρων δ ην μλν αντον φίΧος και των ττερί Κατιλιναν trfXLTTop.ivdiv εχρητο ττροθνμοτάτω συνεργώ καΐ φν\ακι τον σώματος,^ Ισχνρίζομένσυ Sk προς το έγκλημα τω μη^ε γεγονένοΛ κατ εκείνον εν Ύώμη τον \povovy αλλ εν τοις πορρωτάτω χωρύκς 8(ατρίβαν, κατεμαρτνρησεν ως άφιγμενον προς αυτόν οΐκα8ε καΐ SL•εtXεγμεvov περί τίνων όπερ ην άΧηθες. Ου μην εΒόκει μαρτνρεΐν 6 Κικέρων δια την άΧηθενανι άλλα προς την αντον βι B.C. γυναίκα Ύερεντίαν άπολσγονμενος,^ *Ην γαρ αντη προς τον Κλώδιον άπετ γβεια δια την άΒεΧφην την εκείνον Kλωδiαv, ως τω Κικερωνι βουλομενην γαμηβηναι καΧ τσντο δια Κατΰλλου ^ τίνος πράττουσαν, ος εταίρος μεν ην καΐ συνήθης εν τοις μάΧιστα Κικερωνος, άεΐ 8ε προς την Κλωδαιν φοιτών καΐ θεραπεύων εγγύς οικούσαν υποψίαν τη Ύερεντία τταρεσχε.* Χχχλ,εΊτη 8ε τον τρόπον ούσα καΐ του Κικερωνος άρχοχχτα παρώ$υνε τω Κλωδιω στΛ^ίπι^άτ^αι και καταμαρτυρησαι. Κατεμαρτύρουν Sk του Κλωδιου ποΧΧοι των καλών κάγα^ών ανδρών επωρκίας, ραδιουργίας, όχλων δεκασ^νς, φθοράς γυναικών. Λεΰκουλλος δε και θεραποανί^ας παρύχεν, ως συγγενοιτο τη νεωτάτη των αδελφών 6 Κλώδΐ09) οτε Λευκού λλω στη^ωκει. Πολλ^ δ' ^ν δο^α και ταΐς άλλοις δυσιν άδελφαΐς ττλι/σιά^ειν τον Κλώδιον, ών Ύερτίαν μεν Μάρκιος 6 Ύηζ, Κλωδίαν δε Μετελλος 6 Κελερ ^χεν, ην Κουαδραντάχν ^ εκάΧουν, δτι των εραστών τις αυτή χαλκούς εμβαλων εΙς βαλάντιον ως αργυρών είσε- πεμψε • το δε λεπτότατον τον γαΧκου νομίσματος κοναΒράντην εκόΧσυν. * ΈτΓΐ ταύτη μάΧιστα των αδελφών κακώς ηκουσεν ο Κλώδιος. Ου' μην άλλα τστε του Βημου προς τους καταμαρτυρουντας αυτού και συνεστώτα? άντιταττο/Αενου φοβηθεντες όί δικασται φυλακην περιεστησαντο, και τας Μίλτους οι πλείστοι σχτγκεχυμενοις τοΐς γράμμασιν ηνεγκαν.^ "Όμως δε ττλείονες εδο^αν όί άπολύοντες γενέσθαι' και τις ελέχθη και Βεκασμος διελ^ειν. Ο^εν ό μλν Κάτλος άπαντι^σας τοις κριταΐς " Ύμεΐς " ειττεν " ως αληθώς υπέρ ασφαλείας ητησασθε την φυλακην, φοβούμενοι μη τις υμών άφεληται ^ See below § 56 ext. 2 This version is not found elsewhere and probably belongs to the same source as § 43. 86. ^ Cp^ Am. Jour, of Phil. XI. 316 ff. * pro Cael. 20, 50, obliviscor iam iniurias tuas, Clodia, depono memoriam doloris mei, quae abs te crudeliter in meos me absente facta sunt, negligo. ^ pro Cael. 26, 62, mulier potens quadrantaria. ^ This chapter from the chronique scandaleuse of the day is quite in the manner of Suetonius. The details, as here given, are not found elsewhere, but the charge is confirmed in a general way in many passages, e.g. Cic. pro Sest. 7, 15 ; pro Caelio 13, 32 ff. ; de dom. 34, 92 ; pro Mil. 27, 73 ; Veil. II. 45, i. ■^ Thisiact is also given in Plut. Caes. 10. 94 APPENDIX I TO apyvpuov" ^ Κιχήοων Sc τσυ Κλωδώυ ττρός αυτόν XeyovTo?, οτι /χα/οτν/αων ουκ €σ;(€ ττάττιν ττα/οα τοις δύκασταΐ?) " *Αλλ* c/jtot /χέν," cIttcv, " ot ttcktc και €ΐκοσί των δικαστών €πά7Τ€υσαν• τοσούτοι γάρ σου καταφηφίσαντο' σοι δέ τριάκοντα ουκ Ιπιστευσαν ου γαρ νρότ€ρον ά7Γ€λυσαν ly ίΧαβον το αργνριον. * *0 p.€VTOL Kojurap ου κατ€μΛρτνρησ€ κλίκας €πι τον Κλώδιον, ου δ' Ιφτ; μχ)ΐχ(.ιαν κατεγνωκέναι τ^9 γυναικός, άφεικίναχ δ* αυ*τ^ν οτι τον Καίσαρος Ιδεί yapxjv ου πραζεω^ αισχράς μυόνον, άΛΛα και φήμη^ καθαρον cTvoi.^ 69 B.C. 57. XXX. Διαφυγών δ€ τον κινδυνον 6 ΚΛώδιος και ^μχιρχος aiptOu^ evOvs αχ€Τ0 τον Κικφωνος, πάνθ* ομχΛ πράγματα και ττάντας ανθρώπους συνάγων και ταράττων €π αυτόν. Τον tc γαρ δ^/χον <ρκ€ΐώσατο νόροις ψιΛαν^ρώτΓοις,^ και των υττάτων €κατ€ρω ρ^άλας €ΊΓαρχιας Ιψηφίσατο, Π€ΐσωνι /icv Μακ€δονίαν, Ταβινίω δ€ ]§υριαν, ττοΛΛους δ€ των άπορων συνέ- τασσ€ν cts το ττολιτευρα και δούλους ω7Γλισρ.€νους Trcpi αυτόν €?;(€. Των δ€ TrAcMTTOv δυναρ.€νων totc τριών ανδρών, Κροσσού /a€v άντικρυς Κικ€ρωνι 7Γθλ€ρουντος, Πομ.7π/Ϊ6υ δ€ θρνΊττομ,Ινον νρο^ αμφότερους^ Καίσαρος Sk μέλλοντος €ίς Γαλατιαν cficvai ρ^τά στρατνυματοΊζ^ ΰττό τούτον ύττοδύς 6 Κικ€ρων, καίττερ ουκ οντά ψιΛον, αλλ* υποτττον €κ τών Trcpi Κατιλίναν,* ήζίωσε πρεσβευτής αΰτω συστρατ€υαν.^ Δ€^αρ,ενου δ€ του Καίσαρος ό Κλώδιος ορών έκφεύγοντα την ^μχιρ\ιαν αυτού τον Κικ€ρωνα προσεπο^ΐτο συμβατικως Ιχειν, και ttJ Ύερεντία. την 1 This bon mot of Catulus is also recorded by Cic. ad Att I. i6, 5, quid vos, inquit, praesidium a nobis postulabatis ? an ne nummi vobis eriperentur, timebatis ? Sen. Epist. 97, 5 ; Die Cass. XXXVII. 46, 3, τ'ήν φχΡΚΛκ^ν ζτησαρ ούχ ϊν ασφαλών του Κλωδίον καταψηφίσωνται, άλλ* ϊρ αύτοΙ τά χρήματα α δεδω- ροδοκήκεσαρ^ διασώσωρται. 2 Cic. ad Att. I. 16, 10, iuranti, inquit, tibi non credidenint. Mihi vero, inquam, XXV iudices crediderunt, XXXI, quoniam nummos ante acceperant, tibi nihil crediderunt. 8 Plut. Caes. 10; Die Cass. XXXVII. 45; Suet. Caes, 74 testis citatus negavit se quidquam comperisse . . . interrogatusque cur igitur repudiasset uxorem, "Quoniam," inquit," meos tam suspicione quam crimine iudico carere oportere." * Ολο., pro Sest. 25, 55 ; in Pis. 4, 9 and Ascon. ad loc. ; Die XXXVIII. 13. δ Esp. pro Sest. 12, 27. 17, 39 and schol. Bob. ad loc; Veil. Pat. II. 45, 2, non caruerunt suspicione oppressi Ciceronis Caesar et Pompeius; Dio XXXVIII. 16 f. β (D) Clodius's sudden change and Terentia's alleged influence (cp. § 43) are not confirmed by extant sources. Regarding the position of legatus, Plut. is also at variance with the facts, as the offer was made by Caesar : cp. ad Att. II. 18, 3, a Caesare valde liberaliter invitor in legationem illam. II. 19, 4, esp. de prov. cons. 17, 42, postea me, ut sibi essem legatus, non solum suasit, verum etiam rogavit. PLUTARCH'S LIFE OF CICERO 95 TrXcwmyv ανατιμάς cuTtav, Ικύνου Sc μ^μνημενος i'IΓUικως άά καϊ λότγους ευγνώμονας cvStSovs, ώ? αν τις ου μλχτων ουδέ χαλβτταινων) αλλ' €γκαλών μετρία και φιλικά, τταντάττασιν αυτοί; τον φόβον άνηκεν, ώστ* άπ€ΐ7Γ€Γν τω Καισαρι τ^ν Ίτρεσβεναν και ττάλιν €;(€σ^αι^ τή? ττολιτειας. Έφ φ τταρο- ίυν^€ΐ5 ό Καίσαρα τον tc Κλώδιον €7Γ€ρρωσ€ και Πο/υιτη^ϊον άπέστραΙ/ε κομι^^ τον Κικψωνος, αυτός Τ€ κατεμΛρτνρησεν cv τω δι^/χω /α^ δοκειν αυτω ^ καλώς /λτ/δε νομίμΛος άνδρας άκριτους avrjprjaSoj. τους w€pl Αίντλον καϊ Κίθηγον. 58. Αυτί/ γαρ ην η κατηγορία και €πι τσυθ 6 Κικήοων εκαλειτο. Κιν- διη'ευων ουν και διωκό/λενος ^ €σθητα μΛτηλλα^ί. ^ και κόμης άνάπλεως ττερΰων ίκ€Τ€υ€ τον ^ημον» ΤΙανταχοΰ δ* 6 Κλώδιος άτη/ντα κατά τους στενωπούς, ανθρώπους Ιγων νβρνστας περί αυτόν και θρασ€Ϊς, <κ ττολλά /mcv ^λευάζοντες άκολάστως εις την μεταβολην και το (τχτημΛ του Κικψωνος, ττολλαχοΰ δε ττηλω και λιί9οις βάλλοντ€ς Ινίσταντο ταχς ίκεσ-ιαις.^ XXXI. Ου' /Α^ν άλλα τω Κικερωνι πρώτον μεν ολίγου δειν σνμτταν το των ίτΓΤΓΐκών πλ^^ος σvμμJeτ€βakt την Ισθητα, και δισ/χυριων ου*κ ελάττους νέων τταρηκολονθονν κομΜντες καϊ σ~υνικετεΰοντες • έπειτα της βουλής συνελ- θουσης, όπως ψηφίσοΛ,το τον ^μον ως επΙ πενθεσι μεταβαΧεΐν τα ίμΛτια^ και των υπάτων εναντιωθέντων, Κλωδώυ δε σί8ηροφορουμενου περί το βον- λευτ?7ριον, εζε^ραμον ουκ ολίγοι των βουλευτικών καταρρηγννμενοι τους χιτώνας καϊ βοωντες.^ 59. *Ως δ* ην ουτ οίκτος οντε τις αιδώς ττρός την όψιν, άλλ* έδει τον Κικερωνα φενγειν η βί^. καϊ σιδι/ρω κριθηναχ προς τον Κλώδιον, εδειτο ΤΙομπηιου βοηθείν επίτηδες εκποδών γεγονότος καϊ διατρή8οντος εν άγροίς περί τον *ΑΧβανόν. Και πρώτον μεν έπεμψε ΤΙείσωνα τον γαμ,βρον δετ/σο- μενον έπειτα καϊ αυ'τός άνεβη. ΊΙνθόμενος δ* δ ΊΙομτΓηϊος cv\ νπεμεινεν εις 1 (Α) ad Att. IX. 2 b, I, repudiari se totum, magis etiam quam olim in XXviratu putabit. Ac solet, cum se purgat, in me conferre omnem illorum temporum culpam, ita me sibi fuisse inimicum, ut ne honorem quidem a se accipere vellem ; but from de prov. cons. I.e. it would seem that Caesar's anger was occasioned by the previous refusal. 2 (D) This Clodian law did not mention Cicero's name, though it was directed especially against him, nor was Cicero indicted in consequence as w^ould appear from Plut. Cp. e.g. Veil. Pat. II. 45, i, cuius verbis etsi non nominabatur Cicero, tamen solus petebatur; Dio Cass. XXXVIII. 14, 3, ovbk yap TO όνομα αύτοϋ εϊχεν (sc. ό v6μos)t ^ΡΎΨ 5^ ^ir* αυτόν δτι μάλιστα 74 ^• occidunt nonnullosy vulnerant multos . . . caedem in foro maximam faciunt . . . fratrem meum . . . poscebant . . . seque servo- rum . . . corporibufe obtexit . . . turn . . . corporibus civium Tiberim com- pleri. Biichsenschutz ad loc, citing only a part of this passage, asserts that kv rots v€Kpoh is a mistranslation of corpora in the sense of cadaver a ! Plutarch's statement, however, proves that he did not consult this speech, in spite of numerous coincidences. 2 pro Sest. 62, 1 29 ff. 8 ad Att. IV. 2, 2 ; Dio XXXIX. 11. * /;/ Pis, 22, 52. ^ post red. 15, 39, Italia cuncta paene suis humeris reportavit. [Sail.] /"« Cic. 4, 7. ^ ad/am. V. 8, 4. •^ Plut. Cat. Min. 40; Dio XXXIX. 21-23. 8 de dotn. 29, 77, in ilia adoptione legitime factum est nihil. PLUTARCH'S LIFE OF CICERO 99 δογμάτων καΐ irpaittuv τοσούτων την σνγκλητον^ iv als elvai και την iavTov των irepl Κ,ννρον καΐ Βυζάντιο ν διοιΐκι^σιν. Εκ, τούτον irpoai- κρονσ€ν ο Κ.ικ€ρων αντω προσκρονσιν ci? ovh^v €μφαν€ζ irpoeXOovaaVj αλλ ώστ€ τη φιλοφροσννη χρησθαι irpos άΧληλονς άμανρότ€ρον» 66. XXXV. McTot ταύτα Κλώδιον μ€ν άποκτίνννσι Μίλων και^^^^®» Βίωκόμ€ΐ/ος φόνου KiKc /οωνα παρ^στησατο συνηγορον»^ *Η δέ βονΧ,η φοβηθιΐσα^ μη κιν8νν€νοντος ανδρός ενδόξου και θνμο€ώονζ του Μίλωνος ταραχή γ^νητοΛ ττερί την ττόλιν, €π€τρ€ψ€ ΐίομπηίω ταντην Τ€ και τας άλλας Kptitrcts βραβ^σαι^ παρέχοντα τη πόλει και τοις ^ικαστηριοις άσφόΧίίαν, Ekcivov δε την ayopav Ιτι νυκτός άττό των άκρων ττε/οιλα- βόντος TOLS στρατιώταις, ό Μι'λων τον Κ,ικερωνα δεισας, /α^ ττρος την όψιν diy^ciigt διαταράσσεις ;(€ΐ/οον διαγωνισι^ται, συνεττεισεν €v ,φορείω κομισθεντα Trpbs την άγοράν ησνχάζειν^ άχρι ου συνιασιν οΐ κριταΐ και ττλι/ροΰται το δικαστή ριον, 67. *0 δ* ου μόνον ην, ως Ιοικεν, €V δττλοις άθαρσης,^ άλλα και τω λέγειν /υιετα φόβου ττροσι^ει, και /χολις εττανσατο τταλλό/χενος και τρίμων ετΓΐ ττολλών αγώνων άκμην του λόγου και κατάστασιν λα)3όντο9.^ Λικιννιω δε Μουρι/νςι φα/γοντι δικι/ν υπό Κάτωνος βοηθών, και φιΚοτν μούμενος Όρτησιον υτηρβαΧάϊν ενημερησαντα, μέρος ουδέν άνετταυσ-ατο es B.C. τ^ς νυκτός, ώς υιτό τον σφόδρα φροντίσαι και διαγρυττν^α^ κακώσεις ενδεέστερος αύτου ψαν^ναι. 68. Τότε δ' ουν επι τ^ν του Μι λωνος διίκι^ν εκ του φορείου προίΧθων και θεασάμενος τον ϋομπηΐον άνω καθεζόμενον ωσπερ εν στρατόπεδα), και κύκ\ω τα όπλα περιλάρ-ποντα τ^ν ayopav, συν^χύθη και /υιόλις Ινηρζατο του λόγου κραδαινόμ,ενος το σώμα και τήν φωνην ενισχόμενος, αύτου του Μίλωνος ευθαρσώς και ανδρείως παρισταρ,ενου τω άγώνι και κόμην θρ&Ι/αι και μεταβαΧύν εσθητα ψαιάν άπα^ιώσαντος • όπερ ού;5( ηκίστα 8οκ€ΐ συναίτιον αυτω γενέσθαι τής καταδικτ^ς.* *Αλλ ό γε Κικέ- ρων δια ταύτα ψιλεταιρος /χάλλον iy δειλός εδο^εν είναι. 69. XXXVL Γίνεται δε και των ιερέων, ους Αυγουρας *Ρω/ΛαΓοι κα- β3 β.ο. λουσιν, άντι Κράσσου του νέου μετά την εν Πάρ^οις αΰτου τεΧ.ευτην.'^ 1 (Α) Cp. on the Milonian affair : pro Mil. with Ascon. ; Die XL. 48 ff. 2 Liv. Perioch, 1 1 1 vir nihil minus quam ad bella natus. 8 (A) E.g. Cic. de orat. L 26, 121; pro Deiot. 1,1; pro Cluent. 18, 57; Div. in Caec. 13, 41 ; Acad. II. 20, 64. * (A) Ascon. in Mil. p. 31 exercitum in fbro . . . non tantum ex oratione et annalibus sed etiam ex libro apparet qui Ciceronis nomine inscribitur de opt. gen. orat. (= c. 4, 10) ; p. 42 itaque non ea, qua solitus erat, constantia dixit ; Schol. Bob. in Mil. p. 276 circumpositi iudicio milites . . . metu con- stematus et ipse Tullius pedem rettulit; Dio Cass. XL. 54, i. 6 (A) Cic. Phil. II. 2, 4; Brut, i, i. lOO APPENDIX I ei B.C. ΕΓτα κλήρ*^ λαχων των Ιτταρχιων KtXtfcuiv και στρατον οπλυτων μυρίων και ^ισχιΧίων, 1'ηΊΓ€ων δέ ^ισχιλιων Ιζακοσίων,^ €ΤΓλ.€υσ€, προσταγθϊν αντω και τα 7Γ€ρι ΚατΓτταδοκιαν *Αριοβαρζάνυ τω βαχτιλει φίλα και ττειθήνια παραχτχεΐν.'^ Ταΰτά Τ€ Srj παρίστιησατο και συνηρμχ>σ€ν άμ€μπτως άτερ πολέμου, τους τ€ Κιλικας ορών ττροζ το ΤΙαρθικον ιτταΐσμα *¥ωμαΛων καΐ τον iv %υρία.ν€ωτ€ρισμον Ιττηρμενους κατ€πράϋν€ν ημίρως άρχων, 70. Και δω/9α pJkv ovSc των βα^σιΚεων διδόντων iXafie, δ€ΐ7Γνων δε τους €ΤΓαρχικους άνηκίν αυτός Sk καθ* ήμέραν τους χαρίεντας άνελάμβανεν ίστιά- σεσιν ου πολυτελώς, αλλ* €λευθ€ριως, Η δ* οικύι θυρωρον ουκ είχεν, ουδ* αυτός ωφθη κατακαμένος υπ ουδενός, αλλ' εω^εν ίστως η περίπατων προ του δωματίου τους άσπαζομίν&υς εδε^ισυτο. Λέγεται δε μητ€ ράβ^ς αΐκίσαχτθαχ τίνα μητ εσ^τα περνσχίσαι μητ€ βλ/αχτφημίαν υπ* οργής η ζημίας προσβαΧάν μεθ* ύβρεων, * Ανευρων δε τΓολλα των δημοσίων κεκλεμμενα τάς τε πόλεις εύπορους εποιί/σε, και τους αποτίνοντας ουδέν τούτου πλεϊον παθόντας επίτιμους διεφΰλα^εν•* "Ηι/^ατο δε και πολέμου, λι/στάς των περί τον *Κμανον οίκουντων τρεμά- μενος • εφ* ω και αυτοκράτωρ υπό των στρατιωτών άνηγορεύθη.^ 71. Κεκιλύ>υ δε του ρητορος ^εομένου παρδάλεις αυτω προς τίνα θεαν εις 'νώμην εκ Κιλικίας άποστειλαι, καλλωπι^ό/Αενος επι τοις πεπραγμενοις γρά- φει προς αυτόν ουκ είναι παρδάλεις εν Κιλικία * πεφενγεναι yap εις Καρίαν άγανακτουσας, ότι μόνοι πολεμούνται, πάντων είρηνην εχόντων.^ 72. Πλέων δ' από της επαρχίας τούτο μεν *Ρόδ<^» προσεσχε,^ ταΰτο δ' Ά^ναις' εν^ετριψεν^ άσμενος ποθώ των πάλαι διατ/οι^ών. Άνδράσι δε τοις πρώτοις άπο παιδείας συγγενόμενος και Toiis τότε φίλους και συνήθεις άσπασάμενος και τα πρέποντα θαυμασθεις υπό της Ελλάδος εις την πολιν επανηλθεν, η^ τίαν πραγμάτων ωσπερ υπό φλεγμονής άφισταμενων επι τόν εμφύλυον πόλεμον.^ 73. XXXVII, Έν ρλν ουν τη βαυλη ψηφιζομενων αυτω θρίαμβον η^υον αν εφη παρακολουθησαι Καισαρι θριαμβευοντι συμβάσεων γενομένων ' ^^ 1 (D) E.g. ad Att. VI. ι ; ad fam. XV. ι £f. The number is incompatible with the statements of Cicero. ^ (a) ad Att. V. 20, i. 8 On Cicero*s administration of the province, cp. e.g. ad Att. V. 21; VI. 2; ad Quint, f rat. I. i, 2 : but Plutarch, as usual, gives details «i?/ found in Cicero. * (A) ad fam. II. 10, 2 f., victoria iusta imperator appellatus sum; ad Att. V. 20, 3. ^ (D) * ad fam. (ad Caelium) II. 10, 2. 6 (A) Cic. Brut. 1,1. ^ i^k) ad fam. XIV. 5, i, pridie Id. Oct. Athenas venimus . . . cognovi ex multorum amicorum litteris ... ad arma rem spectare. 8 (D) ad fam. I.e. circiter Id. Nov. in Italia speramus fore. 9 * ad fam. XVI. 11,2; ad Att. IX. 4. 10 (D) ad fam. XVI. 11, 3; ad Att. VI. 3, 3. 6, 4; VII. i. 2. The decree was never passed. PLUTARCH'S LIFE OF CICERO lOI lSlcl 8c σνν€βονλ€υ€ ^ ττοΛΛα μεν Καίσαρι γράφων, πολλά δ' αυτοί) ΤΙομτΓψον ^εόμενος, πραννων ίκάτερον καΐ παραμνθονμενος.^ *Ω9 δ* ^ν ανήκεστα και Καίσαρος επερχομένου ΤΙομτΓηίος ονκ Ιμεινεν, άλλα μετά πολλών καΧ αγαθών άντρων την πόλιν εξέλιπε, ταντης μεν άπεΚείφθη της φνγης 6 Κ,ιχερων, ε^οζε δέ Καισα/οι νροστίθεσθαι. 74. Και δ^λ09 εστί τ-β γνωμ^ νολλα ριπταχτΰείς εττ αμφότερα κκά δυσ- πα^σας. Τράφει yap εν ταΐς ετη,στολαΐς^ διαπορειν, ποτερωσε χρη τρεπεσθαι, ΊΙομτΓηίου μεν εν8ο$ον και καλ^ν ιητόθεσίν προς τον πόλεμον έχοντος, Καίσαρος δ' αμευνον τοις πράγμασι χρωμενου καΐ μάλλον εαντον KOJL τους φίλους σώζοντος, ώστ 'ίχειν μεν ον φνγτυ, μη ^χ^ίν δέ προς ον φνγυ* Τρεβατίον δέ, τίνος των Κχιίσαρος εταίρων, γράψαντος επι- στολή ν, OTL ΚαΧσαρ σίετοΛ Suv μάλιστα μεν αντον εζετάζεσθαι μεθ* αντον καΐ των €λπιδων μετέχειν, εί δ' αναδύεται δια γήρας, εΙς την 'Ελλάδα βα^ίζειν κάκεΐ καθημενον ησνχίαν άγειν εκποδών άμφοτεροις γενόμενον, θαυμάχτας ο Κικέρων, οτι Καΐσα/ο αΰτος ουκ ίγραψεν, άπεκρίνατο προς οργην, ως ούδεν άνομων πράξει των πεποΧιτενμενων. Τα μεν ονν εν ταις επιστοΧαΙς γεγραμμενα τοιαντά €στι/ • 75. XXXVIII. Του οε Καίσαρος εις *1βηρίαν απάραντος ενθνς ως 49 Β.ο. Uo/XTnytov επλενσε • ^ καΐ τοις μεν άλλοις άσμενοις ώφθη, Κάτων δ* αύτον ίδων ίδιί^ι πόΧλα κατεμεμφετο ΤΙομπηίϋύ προσθεμενον αντω μεν γαρ ονχι καλώς ^χειν εγκαταλιπεΐν ην απ* άρχης εΐλετο της πολιτείας τάζιν, εκείνον δε χρησιμώτερον οντά τη πατρι'δι και τοις φίλοις, ει μένων ϊσος εκεΐ προς το άποβαΐνον ήρμόζετο, κατ οΰδενα λογισμον ουδ* ε$ ανάγκης πολέμων γεγο- νέναι Καισαρι και τοσούτου μεθεζοντα κίνδυνου δευρ* ^kciv. Ούτοι τε δ^ τον Κικερωνος άνεστοεφον -οΐ λόγοι την γνώμην, και το μέγα μη8εν αντω χρησθαι Πο/χτη^ϊον. 76. Αίτιος δ ην αυτός ονκ αρνούμενος μεταμελεσθαι, φλανριζων^ 8ε τον ΤΙομπηιον την παρασκευην^ και προς τα βονλεύματα δυσκολαινων 1 (Α) ad Att. VII. 3, 4 ; IX. 5 ; ^^^^' II• 9» 22 ff. 2 (A) E.g. ad/am. XVI. 12, i, ut veni ad urbem non destiti omnia et sentire et dicere et facere quae ad concordiam pertinerent etc.; Plut. Caes. 31; Pomp. 59; App. B.C. II. 36. » (A) E.g. ad Att. VIT. i ff. * (A) ad Att. VIII. 7, 2, ego vero quem fugiam habeo, quern sequar non habeo. 6 ad Att. Vli. 17 ; X. 8 f. Cp. p. 10 f. 6 (A) ad Att. VIIL 3 ff.; IX. 2 ff . ; Dio Cass. XLI. 4 ff.; App. B. C. II. 35 ff. ; Plut. Pomp. 60 f. ; Caes. 32 ff. ; Suet. Caes. 31. ■^ (A) ad fam. VI. 6, 10, causae, quam Pompeius animatus melius quam paratus susceperat; VII. 3, 2, cuius me mei facti poenituit . . . propter vitia multa quae ibi offendi quo veneram. 8 (A) Macrob. Satur. II. 3, 7, cum ad Pompeium venisset dicentibus sero eum venisse, responditj Minime sero vieni, nam nihil hie paratum video ; Cic. Phil. II. 16, 40, ne de iocis quidem respondebo, quibus me in castris usumesse dixisti. I02 APPENDIX I νπονλωζ, καΐ του τταρασκώτΓΤ^ν τι καΐ keyeiv γαρνεν as τον^ (τυμμΑχους συκ άπ€χόμ€νοζ, αλλ* avros μ€ν aye λοστός act περΰων €v τω στρατο7Γ€δ<ρ καΧ σκυθρωπός, ercpots δέ παρέχων γέλωτα μ-τβ^ν 8co/xeVots. 77. Β£ληον δί και τούτων ολίγα τταραθέσθαι. Αομιτίον tolvxjv ανθρωπον eh τάζιν ηγεμονικην άγοντος ον πολεμικον καΐ λέγοντος, ως επιει- κής τον τρόπον iari καΐ σώφρων, '* Tt ουν," εΐπεν, " ουκ Ιπίτροητον αυτόν τοις τέκνοις φυλάσσεις ; " *Επ€ανονντων ^έ τίνων ®€θφάνην τον Αέσβιον, ος ην έν τω στρατοττέδφ τίκτόνων €7Γαρχος, ως €V παραμνθήσαιτο Ροδίους τον στόλον άττο^βαλόντας, " Ηλίκον," είπίν, " αγαθόν έστι το Γραικό ν εχειν Ιπαργον*] Καίσαρος Se κατορθονντος τα πλείστα καί τρόπον τίνα πολιορκονντος αυτούς, Αέντλψ μεν είπόντι πννθάνεσθαι στνγνονς είναι τονς Καίσαρος φίλους, άπεκρίνατο, "Arycts αυτούς δυστο€Γν Καισαρι." Μαρκίου δ€ Ttvos ηκοντος εζ Ίταλώς ν^ωστι καΐ λέγοντος εν * Ρώ/χτ; φημην επικρατεΐν, ως ττολχορκοΓτο Πο/χτπ^ϊος, " ΕΓτ* εζέπλενσας,** εΤπεν, " ?να τούτο πιστενσι^ς αυτός θεαχτάμενος ; " McTot δέ την ητταν Νοννώυ μεν ειπόντος, οτι ^εί χρηστας ελπίδας εχειν, έπτα γαρ αετούς εν τω στρατοπέ^*^ του Τίομπηιου λεΧείφθαι, " Καλώς αν,** εφη, " παρτβνεις, ει κολοιοΐς επολεμουμεν." Ααβιηνου Sk μαντείαις τισίν Ισχυριζόμενου και λέγοντος, ως δα περι- γενέσθαι ϋομπήΐον, " Ούκουν," Ιφι;, ^^ στρατηγηματι τοιίτφ χρώμενοι νυν άποβεβληκαμεν το στρατόττεδον." ^ wfo' ^®• XXXIX• Άλλα γαρ γενομένης της κατά ΦάρσαΧον μΛχτβ, ης ου μετέσχε δι* άρρωστίαν,^ και ΤΙομίΓηιου φυγόντος, 6 μεν Κάτων ^ και στρά- τευμα συχνον εν Αυρραχίω και στόλον έχων μέγαν εκείνον η$ίου στρατηγεΐν κατά νόμον και το της υπατείχς αξίωμα προύχοντα. Αιωθονμενος δέ την άρχην 6 Κικέρων και δλως φεύγων το συστρατεύεσθαι^ παρ* ουδέν ^λ^εν dvoipc^vai, ΙΙομτΓηιου του νέου και των φίλων προ^ότην άποκαλουντων και τα ζίφη σπασαμένων, εΐ μη Κάτων ενστάς μόλις άφείλετο και δι^κεν αυτόν εκ του στρατοπέ^υ .* *8-*7 79. Κατασ^ων δ* cis BpcvTcaiov βνταυ^α ^ιέτριβε,^ Καίσαρα περιμένων βρα^ύνοντα hia τάς εν *Ασια και π€ρι Αιγυτττον ασχολίας. 'Ettci δ εΙς Ύάραντα καθωρμισμένος άπηγγέλλετο και πεζή περιϊων εκείθεν εις Έρεντέσιον, 1 (D) This retort furnishes the irrefutable proof that it, and along with it this entire batch of witticisms, was not taken from Tiro's de iocis Ciceronis, for Labienus fell at Pharsalus while Cicero was at Dyrrhachium. 2 (A) ad fam. IX. i6, 7, in acie non fui; Liv. Perioch. in Cicero in castris reman sit. 8 (A) E.g. Dio Cass. XLII. 10 ό Κάτων iv τφ Ανρραχίψ . . . καταλειφθείς. * ad fam. VII. 3. δ Plut. Cat. Min. 55. 6 (A) E.g. ad fam. XI. 27; XIV. 11 ; ad Att. XI. 15. 48 PLUTARCH'S LIFE OF CICERO 103 ωρμησε προς αυτόν, ου ττάνν μλν ων 3ixre\7ri9, α&ονμ^νοζ Sc ποΛΛών παφόντων ανδρός €\θρον και κρατούντος \αμ.βάν€ΐν τταραν. Ου μ-ην iSerjaev αντω ττρα^αί τι παρ* αζίαν η ciTTCtv. Ο γαρ Κοαταρ, ώς e78cv αυτόν πολύ ττρο των άλλων άτταντώντα, κατ€βη καΐ ησπάχτατο καΙ ^ωΧνγόμενος /Αονφ συχνών στάλων όδον προηΧθεν. Έκ Sc τούτου δΐ£Τ€λα τιμύων καΐ φιΧοφρονούμενος,^ ώστ£ καΐ -γραή/αντι 4β β.ο. λόγον €Ύκώμιον Κάτωνος αντιγράφων ^ f όν tc λόγον αυ'του και τον ^tbv ώς μΔΧίΧΤτα τω Περικλέους €θΐκότα και ®ηραμ.€νους έπαχνεΐν. Ο μλν ουν Κικ€ρω- νος λόγος Κάτων, δ Sc Καίσαρος *Αντικάτων €πιγ€γροπται. 80. Λ€γ€ται Sc και Κοίντου Λιγαριου δίκιων φεύγοντος, οτι τώνβ•1>*•*ρ, Κίλύταρος πολερ/ων εΙς εγεγόνα, και Κικ€ρωνος αυ'τω βοηθουντος, εΙπειν τον Καίσαρα ττρος τονζ φίλους* "Τι κωλι^ δια χρόνου Κικφωνος άκουσαι λέγον- τος, €π£ΐ πάλαι κέκριται πονηρός άνηρ και πολέριος ; '' επ€ΐ δ* άρζάμενος λεγαν 6 Κικέρων υπερφυως έκινα και προυβαχνεν αυτω πάθει τε ποικίλος και χάριτι θαυμαστός ό λόγος, πολλας /xcv ίέναι χρόας επι του προσώπου τον Καίσαρα, πάσας Sk της ψυχής τρεπόμχνον τροπάς κατάδι^λον civai, τεΧος δε των κατά Φάρσαλον άψαμενου του ρητορος αγώνων εκπαθη γενόρ^νον τιναχθηνοΛ τω σώματι και της χεφός εκβαΧεΐν ίνια των γραμματειών- Τον γουν άνθρωπον απέλυσε της αίτιας βεβιασμένος,^ 81. XL. Έκ τούτου Κικέρων, εις μοναρχίαν της πολιτείας μεθεστώσης, 40 B.C. άφεμενος του τα κοινά πράττειν^ εσχόλαζε τοις βουλομένοις φιλοσοφείν^ των νέων,® και σχώον εκ της προς τούτους συντφείας, ευγενέστατους και πρώτους όντας, α^ις ισχυεν εν Ty πόλει μεγιστον* 82. Αΰτω δ' ίργον μεν ην το τους φιλοσόφους συντελεΐν διάλογους *J'J* και μεταφράζειν,^ και των διαλεκτικών η φυσικών ονομάτων εκαστον εις Τωμαϊκην μεταβάΧλειν δκίλεκτον * '^ έκειμος γάρ έστιν, ώς φασιν, δ και ^ (Α) E.g. ad /am. IV. 13, 2 ; IX. 16. 2 (A) E.g. Λκ€ΐ δ€ και μείζων τις αιτία γεγονεναι τον τον Κικερωνα ^εζα- σθαι προθνμως την Καίσαρος φιΧίαν. "Ετι γαρ, ως εοικε, ΊΙομτΓηιον ζίοντος και Καίσαρος ε^οζε κατά τονς νττνους^ 6 Κικέρων καλεΐν τίνα τους των συγκλητικών τταιδας εΙς το Καπιτώλιον, ως μέλλοντος ε$ αΰταν ενα του Διός άπ(^ικνύειν της* Ρώμης ηγεμόνα• τους Sk πολίτας νπο σπονδής θεοντας ϊστασθαι περί τον νέων κλι τονς παί^ας εν ταΐς περιπορφνροις καθεζεσθαι σιωττην έχοντας, *Έ1ζαίφνης δέ των θυρών άνοιχθεισών καθ* ενα των παίδων άνισταμενων κύκλω πάρα τον θεον παραπορεύεσθαχ, τον δέ πάντας επισκοπεΐν και άποπεμπειν άχθομενους. Ως δ' ούτος ην προσιων κατ αυτόν, εκτεΐναι την δε^ιάν και cittciv, "*Ω *Ρω/χαΓοι, πέρας νμΐν εμφνλίων πολέμων οωτος ηγεμων γενόμενος.** Ύοισυτόν φασιν ενυπνίων ΐδόντα τον Κικερωνα την μεν ιδβζν του τταιδος εκμεμάχθαι και κατέχειν €ναργώς, αΰτον 8* ονκ επίστασθαι. Mc^* ημεραν δέ καταβαίνοντας είς το πεδίον το " Αρενον αντον τοίυς παΐδας η^ γεγνμνασ μένους άπερχεσθαι, κάχείνον όφθηναι τω Κικερωνι πρώτον οίος ώφθη καθ νττνον ' εκπλαγεντα δέ ττυνθάνεσθαι, τίνων είη γονέων. *Ην δε ττατρος Οκταουιου των ονκ άγαν επιφανών, *Αττίας Se μητρός, άδελφιδ^ς Καίσαρος. Οθεν Καίσαρ αντώ τταΐδας ονκ έχων ίδιους την ουσίαν εαυτού και τον οίκον εν ταΐς ^ιαθηκαις Ιδωκεν. Έκ τούτου φασι τον Κικερωνα τω ττοαδι κατά τος απαντήσεις εντνγχάνειν επιμελώς, κάκεΐνον οίκείως ^έχεσθοΜ τας φιλοφρο- σύνας • και γαρ έκ τύχης αύτώ γίγονεναχ σνμβεβήκει Κικερωνος νπατεύοντος.* 91. XLV. Αύται μεν ονν προφάσεις ήσαν λεγόμεναί' το δε ττρος Άντώνιον μίσος Κικερωνα πρώτον, είτα ή φύσις ήττων ούσα τιμής προσε- ποίησε Καίσαρι νομίζοντα προσλαμβάνειν τη πολιτεία την εκείνου ^ύναμιν.^ Ούτω γαρ νπηει το μειράκιον αυτόν, ώστε και πάτερα προσαγορεύειν.^ 1 {Α) Phil, ΙΠ. 2, 3; IV. Ι, 3; ν. 8, 23; ad Att. XVL 8; Αρρ. Β. C. ΙΠ. 12; Die XLIV. 12 ; Veil. Pat. II. 61, ι ; Liv. Perioch. 117. 2 (A) ad Att. XV. 12, 2 ; XVL 11,6; ad fam. XIL 23, 2 ; Phil. V. 16, 45 ; Dio Cass. XLV. 15, 4. 8 (D) * Suet. Aug. 94 ; Dio Cass. XLV. 2 ; TertuU. de anima 46. See p. 55 ff. * (A) * Suet, and Dio 11. cc. 5 (A) Dio Cass. XLV. 15, 4; Phil. V. 16. ^ (A) Cp. Brut, ad Att. 1. 17, 5, licet ergo patrem appellet Octavius Ciceronem. I08 APPExNDIX I 43 B.C. Έφ* ώ σφόδρα Β/οουτος άγαναχτων iv ταΐ9 irpos *Αττικ6ν Ιπιστο- λαΐ9 καΒηφΛΤΟ^ ταυ Κικίρωνοζ, οτι δια φόβον * Αντωνίου θ€ραπ€νων τον Καίσαρα δ^λός ioTLv ουκ iXtvOepiav Ty ττατρίΒι νράττων, άλλα Becnrorrpf φιλάνθρωπον αυτω μνώμίνος, OJ μην άλλα τον ye τταιδα Κιχ^οωνο? 6 βρόντος cv *A^vcu9 ^ιατρίβοντα τταρα τοις φιλοσόφοις άναλαβων €σ)(€ν €φ* ηγ€μχ3νύις καΐ ττοΛΛα χρώμενος αυτω κατωρυου, 92. Του δε Κικ€/οωνος άκμην ίσχ€ν η ^ύναμις^ iv τβ πόλο. τότε μιγίστην, καϊ κρατών όσον εβούλετο τον μλν *Αντώνυον εζεκρουσε καΐ κατεστασνασε καΐ ΊΓολεμησοντας αυτω τους δυο υπάτους, "IpTUiv kcu Udvaav, εζάτεμψε, Καύταρι δέ ραβδούχους καϊ στρατηγικον κόσμον,* ώς ^η νροπολεμουντι της Ίτατρί^ος, €πασ€ ψηφίσαχτθαι την σνγκλτγτον. Έπα δ* 'Αντώνιος μλν ηττητο, των δ* υπάτων αμφοτέρων αποθανόντων εκ της μάχτις^ προς Καίσαρα συνέστησαν αί δυνάμεις, δασασα δ* η βουλή νέον άνδρα ^ και τύχτ) λαμπρά κεχρημένον επειρατο τιμαΐς καϊ δωρβαις άττο- KoXciv αυτού τα στρατενματα και περισπαν την δυνα^ιιν» ως μη ^εομενη των προπολεμούντων * Αντωνίου πεφευγότος, ούτως 6 Καίσαρ φοβηθείς υπεπεμπε τω Κικερωνι τους ^εομενους καϊ πείθοντας υττατεΜν μλν άμφοτέροις ομού πράττειν^ χρησθα^ δε τοις πράγμασιν δπως αυτός εγνωκε, τταραλαμβάνοντα την άρχην καϊ το μειράκιον διοικαν ονόματος καϊ Βόζης γλιχόμενον. 93. 'ίΐμολόγει δε Καίσαρ αυτός^ ως δεδιως κατάλυσιν και κινδυ- νευων έρημος -γενέσθαι χρησαιτο τη Κικερωνος εν δέοντι φιλχψχία, προτρεφάμενος αυτόν υττατείαν μετιενοί συμπράττοντος αυτού και συν- αρ;(αιρ€σΐ(ί^οντο9. XLVI. Ενταύθα μεντοι μάλιστα Κικέρων επαρθεις^ υπο νέου γέρων και φενακισθεις και συναρχαιρεσιάσας και παράσχων αυτω την συγκλητον ευθύς μεν υπο των φίλων αίτιαν ειχεν, όλιγω δ ύστερον αυτόν άπολωλε- κως ησθετο καϊ του ^ήμου προεμενος την ελευθερίαν» 1 In the one extant letter (Brut, ad Att, I. 17, 2) some such censure is implied, but it is not so expressed. Cp. also Brut, ad Cic. I. 16; Cic. ad Brut. I. 15, 3. 2 Cic. ad Brut. I. 5, 3 ; II. 7, 6; Brut, ad Cic. II. 3 ; Plut. Brut. 24. 2 Cp. the passages cited § 88 ^ and Plut. Ant. 17 ; Cic. ad Brut. I. 3, i. 10, 3. 15, 6; App. B. C. IV. 19 Κικέρων δέ μετά Tatov Καίσαρα ϊσχυσεν, οση yivoiTo hv δημαΎ<ιΤγοΰ μυοναρχία. * Phil. Ill ; V; VIII ; ad/am. Χ. 28, ι ; App. Β. C. III. 50 £f. ; Dio XLVI. 29 ff. — Cic. ad Brut. I. 15, 7, quis honos ei fuit non decemendus . . . decrevi etiam imperium . . . quid enim est sine imperio exercitus. 6 (A) Phil. XIV ; App. B. C. III. 69 ff. ; Dio XLVI. 36 ff. ; Plut. Ant. 17. 6 (A) Dio Cass. XLVI. 41. 7 (A) id. XLVI. 42 f. (D) Cic. ad Brut. I. 10. 8 (A) This was foreseen by Brutus. Cp. ad Cic. I. 4, 4 f. 16, 7 f. PLUTARCH'S LIFE OF CICERO 109 94. Ανίηθείς yap 6 veavCa^ και την νττατεύιν λαβών Κικ€ρωνα itA^v^f^y» cuiac γαίρ€.ιν,^ Άντωνιω δέ και AtiriSa» φίλος γενόμενος και την ^νναμιν CIS ταντο συν€ν€γκών ωσπερ άλλο τι κτημΛ την ηγεμονιαν ^νείματο προς αντοΛ.^ ΚαΙ κατεγράφησαν άνδρες oSs €δ« θνησκειν, νττερ Βιακοσίονς, ΊΙλειστην δέ των άμφισβητημάτων αντοΐς εριν η ίίικερωνος προγραφή παρεσχεν,^ * Αντωνίου μεν άσνμβάτως έχοντος, εΐ μη πρώτος εκείνος άποθνησκου, ΑεπίΒον δ* Αντωνίω προστιθεμενον, Καίσαρος δέ προς αμφότερους αντέχοντος. *ΕγινοκΓθ δ αϊ σννοδοι μόνοις απόρρητοι περί πολιν Βονωνώιν εή> ημέρας τρεις, και σΆπη^εσαν εις τόπον τίνα πρόσω των στρατοπέδων ποταμω περιρρεόμενον, Αεγεται Sk τας π ρωτάς ημέρας ^ιαγωνισάμενος υπέρ του Ιίικερωνος 6 Καίσαρ €νδοι)να4 Ty τρίτη και προεσθαχ τον άνδρα. Τα δε της αντι^όσεως ούτως εΊχεν, *Εδα Κικ€ρωνο9 €κστ^ναί Καί- σαρα, Παύλου δε τάδελψοΰ Λέττιδον, Αευκίου δε Καίσαρος Αντώνιον, ος ην θείος αυτω προς μητρός.^ Ούτω? εζεπεσον υπο θυμού και λύσσης των ανθρωπίνων λογισμών, μάλλον δ απέδειξαν ως οΰδεν άνθρωπου θηρίον εστίν άγριώτερον εζουσίαν πάθει προσλαβόντος, 95. XLVIL^ Πραττο/χενων δε τούτων 6 Κικέρων ην μεν εν άγροΐς ιδίοις περί Ύουσκλον έχων τον ά^ελφον μεθ αυτού' πυθόμενοι δε τας προγραφας έγνωσαν εις ^Αστυρα μεταβηναι, χωρίον παράλιον του Κικε- ρωνος' εκείθεν δε ττλεΐν εις Μακεδονιαν προς Έρουτον η^η γαρ υπέρ αυτού λόγος εφοίτα κρατούντος, ΈΜΚομίζοντο δ* εν φορείοις 'άπειρηκό- τες υπο λύπης • και κατά την όδόν εφιστάμενοι και τα φορεία παραβάλ- λοντες άλληλοις προσωλοφύροντο. Μάλλον δ* 6 Κόϊντος ηθύμει, και λογισμός αυτόν είσηει της απορίας • οΰδεν γαρ εφη λαβείν οϋκοθεν, άλλα καΐ τφ Κικερωνι γλίσχρον ην εφόδιον α/Μίνον ο^ ε?ναι τον μεν Ktice- ρωνα προλαμβάνειν τη φυγή, αυτόν δε μεταθείν οίκοθεν συσκευασάμενον. Ταΰτ* εδο^ε * και περιλαβόντες αλλήλους κοΧ άνακλαυσάμενοι ^ιελύθησαν, Ο μεν ουν Κόίντος ου ττολλαις ύστερον ήμεραις υπο των οικετίον προ- δοθείς τοις ζητουσιν άνηρεθη /χετα του τταιδός. *0 δε Κικέρων εις 1 Cp. Brut, ad Cic. I. 4, 6, te consulem factum audivimus; App. B. C. III. 92 avcXoyeiTo καΐ rijp είσήγησιν ttjs iiraTelas ύττερεΊτηρερ, -ην airhs έν ry βουΧγ trporepop βίστ^γήσατο. *0 Si τοσοΰτορ άιτεκρίνατο, έπισκώπτωρ otl των φίλων αύτφ TeKevTOios ivrvyxdvoi. 2 (A) Liv. Perioch. 119. 120; Veil. Pat. II. 65 ff . ; Plut. Ant, 19; Brut, 26; App. B, C. IV. 2 ff. ; Die Cass. XLVI. 54 ff. 8 (A) * Veil. Pat. II. 66, i ; Suet. Aug. 27 ; de vir. ill. c. 81 ; Plut. Ant. 19, i. MA) See §94 2. δ Flight and death of Cicero : * Liv. ap. Sen. Suas. VI. 17, 22; Asin. Poll, ap. eund. 15. 24; Val. Max. V. 3, 4; App. B. C IV. 7 ff. esp. 19 f. ; Dio Cass. XLVII. i-io. 1 1 ; rhetores ap. Sen. Suas. VI. VII. Contr. VII. 17. £xc. VII. 2. no APPENDIX I "Αστνρα κομισθείς καΐ ττλοΐον εύρων ευθνς ίνεβη και παρεπΧευσεν άχρι ^ιρκαίον ττνενμχιτι χρώμενος, ^Έικεΐθεν Sc βονΧομενων ενθνς αιρειν των κυβερνητών, είτε δεισας την θάλασσαν ειτ ουττω παντάπασι την Καίσα- ρος άττεγνωκως ττίστιν, απέβη καΐ τταρηΧθε ττεζη στα^ίονς εκατόν ως εΙς *νώμην ΐΓορενόμενος. Ανθις δ* άΧνων και μεταβαΧΚό μένος κάτσει ττρος θάλασσαν εις ^Αστυρα. Κακεΐ ^ιεννκτερενσεν επι δεινών και άπορων λογισμών, ώστε και παρελθεΐν εις την Καίσαρος οικίαν ^ιενοηθη κρύφα και σφάζας εαντον επι της εστίας άλάστορα προσβαλείν} Άλλα και ταντης αυτόν απέκρουσε της όδοΰ ^εος βασάνων • και ταλλα ταραχώδη και παλίντροπα βουλεύματα της γνώμης μεταλαμβάνων παρε- δωκ£ T0t9 οικεταις εαντον εις Καπίτας κατά πλουν κομίζειν, έχων εκεί χωρία και καταφνγην cSp^i θέρους φιλάνθρωπον, όταν ήδιστον οι ετησίαι καταττνεωσιν. ^χει δ' ό τότΓος και ναόν * Απόλλωνος μικρόν υπέρ της θαλάττης, 'Εντεύθεν άρθεντες αθρόοι κόρακες ^ υπό κλαγγης προσεφεροντο τω πλοίω του Κικερωνος επι γην ερεσσομενω • και καθίσαντες επι την κεραίαν εκατέρωθεν οι μεν εβόων, οι δ' εκοπτον τάς των μηρυμάτων αρχάς, και πάσιν ε^όκει το σημεΐον eivat πονηρόν, * Απέβη δ* ουν 6 Κικέρων, καΐ παρελθών εις την Ιπαυλιν ως άναπαυσόμενος κατεκλίθη» Των δέ κοράκων οι πολΧοΧ μεν επι της θυρί^ος ^ιεκάθηντο φθεγγόμενοι θορυβώδες, εΙς δέ καταβας επι το κλινί^ιον εγ κεκαλυμμένου του Τ^ικερωνος άπηγε τω στόματι κατά μικρόν άπο του προσώπου το Ιμάτιον. Οί δ' οικετοΛ, ταυ^* ορωντες και κακίσαντες εαυτούς, εΐ περιμενουσι του ^εσπότον φονευομενου θεαται γενέσθαι, θηρία δ αύτω βοηθεΐ καΐ προκη^εται παρ* άζίαν πράττοντος, αυτοί δ' ουκ άμύνουσι, τα μεν ^εόμενοι, τα δέ ^ligi λαβόντες εκόμιζον εν τω φορείω προς την θάλασσαν» 96. XLVIIL Εν τούτω δ οι σφαγείς επηλθον, εκατοντάρχης *Ep€v- vios* και ΙΙοπίλλιος χιλίαρχος,^ ω πατροκτονίας ποτέ ^ίκην φεύγοντι συνεΐπεν 6 Κικέρων, έχοντες υπηρετας. Ειπεί δ€ τας θύρας κεκλεισμένας ευρόντες εζεκοψαν, ου φαινομένου του Κικερωνος ουδέ των εν^ον (ΐδεναι φασκόντων,^ λέγεται νεανίσκον τίνα τεθραμμενον μεν υπο του Κικερωνος εν γράμμασιν ελευθερίοις και ^ See ρ. 29. 2 Val. Max. I. 4» 5 » -^ΡΡ- ^' ^• ^^• ^^\ de vir. ill, c. 81. 3 * Hieronymus (i.e. Suetonius) is the only other writer who mentions Heren- nius as an assassin of Cicero : in Formiano suo ab Herennio Pompilio (sic I) occiditur. See p. 27 ff. * (D) App. B. C. IV. 19 oi μ^ν Λλλοι . . . ιτλεΓν a.i)Thv ^ξαναχθέντα ^Xeyov ηδη • σκντ&Γομοί δέ, πελάτης ΚΧωδίον, πικροτάτον τψ Κικέρωνι έχθροΰ yeyovoroSf Aaivg. τψ ΧοχαΎψ σύν OXLyois 6ντι τ^ν άτραπόν ^δ€ΐξ€ν. PLUTARCH'S LIFE OF CICERO ill μΛθημχισυν, aTreXcvOcpov δ€ Κοιντου του α^ελ,φου, Φιλόλογρν τουνομυα^ φράσαι τφ χ^Α,ιάρ;(ω το φορεΐον κομιζόμενον δια των κατάφυτων και σνσκίων ττίριττάτων ΙττΙ την θάλασσαν, *0 μλν ονν χιλίαρχοζ ολίγους άναΧαβων μεβ* Ιαυτοΰ TrepUOcL irpos την iioSov, τον δ* Ερεννιου 8ρ6μω φ^ρομ,ενον δια των περιπάτων ο Κικ€ρων ησθετο, καΐ τονς οΙκ€τας €Κ€Χ,€νσ€ν Ιντανθα καταθ&τθαι το φορέΐον, Αύτο5 δ', ωσπερ eituOeL, τη αριστερά χ^ίρΐ των ycvctcDV άπτόμενο^ άτ€ν€ς €ν€ωρα τοΐζ σφαγενσυν, αυ;(/ιου καΐ κομηζ άνάπλεως καΐ σνντετηκως νττο φροντίδων το πρόσωπον, ώστ€ τους πλείστους ε-γκαλύψασθαι του *Epcv- νιου σφάζοντος αύτό»'.^ Ι^σφάγη δε τον τράχηλον Ικ του φορείου προ- Tctvas, €Τος εκείνο γεγονως εζηκοστον καΐ τέταρτον. Ύην 8ε κεφαλήν 4?β.ο*. άπεκοψεν αυτού καΧ rots χείρας, * Αντωνίου κελενσαντος, αίς τους Φιλιππι- κους Ι^Ύραψεν.^ Αυτός τε γαρ 6 Ιίικερων τους κατ' Αντωνίου λόγους Φιλιππικους επεγραφε καΐ μέχρι νυν τα )3ι^λια ΦιΧιππικοΙ καλούνται. XLIX. Των δ* ακρωτηρίων εΙς *¥ωμην κομισθεντων ^τυχε μεν αρχαι- ρεσίας τελών 6 * Αντώνιος, άκουσας Sk καΧ ιδων άνεβόησεν, ώς νυν αι πρόγραφα! τέλος εχοιεν.^ Ύην δ€ κεφαλήν και τας χείρας εκελευσεν υπέρ των εμβόλων επι του βήματος ^civai, θέαμα Ρωμαίοις φρικτόν,* ου το Κικ^ρωνος 6/οαν πρόσ- ωπον οιομενοις, άλλα της 'Αντωνίου ψυχής εικόνα, Πλ^ν CV γ ε τι φρονησας μετριον εν τούτοις ΤΙομπωνία τη Κοιντου γυναικί τον Φιλόλογον παρε^ωκεν, Η δέ κυρία γενομένη του σώματος αλλαΐ9 τε δ€ΐναΓ9 εχρήσατο τιμωρίαις, και τας σάρκας άποτεμνοντα τας αυτού κατά μικρόν οτττάν, ciT* εσθίειν ηνάγκασεν,^ Ούτω γαρ ε νιο ι των συγγραφέων ιστορήκασιν 6 δ αΰτοΰ του Κικ€ρωνο9 ά7Γ€λ€υ- θερος Ύίρων το παράπαν ουδέ μεμνηται της του Φιλολόγου προδοσίας. 97. Πυν^άνο^αι δ€ Καίσαρα χρόνοις ττολλοϊς ύστερον εισελθεΐν προς Ινα των θυγατρικών τον δ€ βιβλίον έχοντα Κικερωνος εν τοις χερσιν εκπλαγεντα τω Ιματίω περικαλύτττειν • ιδόντα 8ε Καίσαρα λαβείν καΐ ^ιελθεΐν εστωτα μέρος πολύ του βιβλίου, πάλιν δ' αποδίδοντα τω μειρακίω φάναι, '^ Λόγιος άνηρ, ω παΐ, λόγιος και φιλόπατρις,** 1 (D) See above § 95 *• 2 This agrees with Liv. ap. Sen. I.e. ; the traditional account is given by Plutarch in Ant. c. 20, l, έκέ\€νσ€ν * Αντώνιος τ-ήν κεφαλ-ήν άττοκοττηναι καΐ τ^ν χ€Ϊρα τ^ν δβξίαν, y τους κατ αύτοΰ Xoyovs liypa\p€. 8 (A) Cremutius Cordus ap. Sen. Suas. I.e. 19 quibus visis laetus Antonius cum peractam proscriptionem suam dixisset esse. * Cp. § 95 6 ; Florus IV. 6, 5. 6 (D) Dio Cass. XLVII. 8, 3. 112 APPENDIX I Μ B.C. 98. Ελγ€ι μάτΓοι τάχιστα κατενολίμησεν *Αντώνιον ννατακον αυτός ciXero σννάρχοντα του ΚιΚ€ρωνος τον νΐόν,^ Ιφ* ου τάς τ* εοίόκας η βουλή καθαλιεν * Αντωνίου καΐ τας οΛΛας ηκύρωσε τιμάς και ηροσεψηφίσατο /iitScvi των Αντωνίων όνομα Μάρκον είναι. Ούτω το 8αιμόνιον ας τον Ktice- ρωνος οίκον επανηνεγκε το τέλος της * Αντωνίου κολάσεως.^ COMPARISON OF DEMOSTHENES AND CICERO 99. I. A μ€ν ουν afta μνήμης των νερι Δημοσθένους και Κικερωνος Ιστορουμ€νων €ίς την ήμ€Τ€ραν άφΐκται γνώσιν, ταυτ €στιμ. *Αφακως δε το συγκρίνα,ν την iv τοις λάγοις €$ιν αυτών €Κ£Ϊνό μοι δοκώ μη τηψήσειν άρρητον, οτι Αημοσθένης ftcv ας το ρψΌρικον ενέτεινα παν, όσον (ΐχεν εκ φύσεως η ασκήσεως λόγων, υττερβαλλόμενος εναργεία. μλν καΐ δακό- Ti^Tt τους εττι των αγώνων καΙ των δικών συνεζεταζομενΌίυς, ογκω δε icot μεγαλοττρε'πεί^ τους επιδεικτικούς, ακρίβεια δέ και τέχνη τους σοφιστάς * 100. Κικέρων δε και πολυμαθης και ποικίλος Ty ττερί τους λογούς σπουδή γενόμενος συντάξεις μεν ίδιας φιλοσόφους άττολελοιπεν ουκ ολίγας εΙς τον Ακα^ημαϊκον τρόπον, ου μην άλλα και δια των προς τας δικας και τους αγώνας γραφομενων λόγων δ^λός εστίν εμπειρίαν τινά γραμμάτων παρεπιΒεί- κνυσθαι βουλόμενος.^ *Εστι δε τις και του ήθους εν τοις λόγοις εκατερου διο^ις. *0 ^εν γαρ Αημοσθενικος εζω παντός ώραϊσμου και τταιδιας εις δεινότητα και σπου^ην συνηγμενος ουκ ελλυχνίων οδωδεν, ωσπερ 6 Πυ^έας εσκω- πτεν, αλλ* ΰδροποσίας και φροντίδων και της λεγομένης πικρίας του τρόπου και στυγνότητος, 101. Κικέρων δε πολλαχου τω σκωπτικω προς το βωμολόχον εκφερόμενος και πράγματα σττουδ^ς αςια γελωτι και τταιδιοι κατειρω- νευόμενος εν ταις δικαις εις τό χρειώδες ηφεί^ει του πρέποντος, ωσπερ εν Tjj Καιλίου συνηγορία μη^εν άτοπον ποιεΐν αυτόν εν τοσαύτη > ίΑ) ?;rn ,/,' hcwf. IV. .3". ι ; Αρρ. /?. C, IV. 51 ; Dio LI. 19, 3• ΜΛ; Mil• |ι ίΛ \»\) 'Αντωνίου κοσμήματα τά μ^ν καθεΐλον, τά δ' άπήλειψαρ ΐΗ iiiU ΜΛμι,ηιι ημ/}ΐΐρημα ΑνΗπον μηδ€νΙ των συγγενών αύτοΰ εϊναι . . . tnlh/i ti tn'ti J« ιιΓ'/^ Aflcrl Π)} iTVfi[iA.v ^\άμ(1ανον etc. ** 11•).•^ ηΐιΗι-.ΐιιπιΐ )q iiujuhI hiuI tniiMt lir attril)uted to some post-Augustan ί )• i.tiiiiiuaiiii. I'iii i'inhitiliit wfnilil, ιιιηπ'ονίίΓ, imply too exhaustive a knowl- »:•Ι|ί{ΐ: ;(^ ιταν πάθος κινούσα και ττασαν άττοκα- λντΓΤουσα κακίαν, ^ημοσθενει μεν ου\ υπηρζεν, ούδ* Ιδωκε τοιαύτην διάττειραν Ιαυτοΰ μτβεμίαν άρχτην των επιφανών άρζας, ος ούδε τ^ς ΰψ* αύτοΰ συντεταγμένης επΙ Φίλιππόν εστρατηγησε δυνάμεως • 104. Κικ€ρων δ€ ταμίας εις SiKcXiav και άν^νττατος ας Κιλικίαν και ΚατΓτταδοκιαν άττοσταΛεις, εν ω καιρώ της φιλοπλουτίας άκμαζούσης, και των πεμπομενων στρατηγών και ηγεμόνων, ως του κλεπτειν άγεννους οντος, επι το άρπάζειν τρεπομενων, ου το λαμβάνειν ε^όκει ^εινόν, αλλ* δ μετρίως τούτο ποιων ήγαπατο, πολλην μεν επί^ειζιν υπεροψίας χρημά- των εποιησατο, πολΧην δέ φιλανθρωπίας και χρηστότητος,^ 105. *Εν αΰτ^ δ€ τ-β *νωμη λόγω μεν αποδειχθείς ύπατος, εζουσίαν δέ λαβών αυτοκράτορος καί ^ικτάτορος επΙ τους περί Κατιλιναν, εμαρτύ- ρησεν αμα τφ Πλάτωνι μαντευομενω τταΰλαν If civ κακών τάς πόλεις, όταν εΙς ταυτο Βύναμίς τε μεγάλη καί φρόνησις €Κ τίνος τυχτ^ς χρήστης απάντηση μετά δικαιοσύνης, Χ,ρηματίσασθαι τοίνυν απο του λόγου Δημοσθένης μεν επιψόγως XcycTai, λογογραφων κρύφα τοις περί Φορμίωνα και Άιτολλόδωρον άντι- δικοις, καί ^ιαβληθείς μεν επϊ τοις βασιλικόις χρήμασιν, οφλων δε των ΑρτταΧείων, Ει δε ταύτα τους γράφοντας (ουκ ολίγοι δ* εΐσιν ούτοι) ψεύ8εσθαι φαίημεν, αλλ οτι γε ττρός δωρεάς ^βασιλέων συν χάριτι και τιμή διδο/χενας άντιβλεψαι Δημοσθένης ουκ αν ετόλμησεν, οΰδ ην τούτο το Ιργον άνθρωπου ^ανείζοντος επι ναυτικοΐς, άμηχανον άντειττειν περί δε Κικερωνος, δτι και Σικελιωτών άγορανο/χουντι και βασιλέως του Καττ- τταδοκών άν^υττατευοντι και των εν *νώμη φίλων, δτ* ενέπιπτε της πόλεως, δωρουρ,ενων πολλά και δεορ,ενων λαβείν άντεσχεν, είρηται, IV. Και μην η γε φυγή τω μεν αΙσχρα κλοττ^ς άλόντι συνέπεσε, τω δε κάλλιστον έργον ανθρώπους αλιτηρίους εκκόψαντι της πατρίδος. Διό του μεν ουδείς λόγος εκπίπτοντος, εφ* ω S* η σύγκλητος εσθητά τε ^ιήλ- λαςε και πένθος εσχε και γνώμην υπέρ ούδενός ειπείν επείσθη πρότερον η Κικερωνι κάθο^ον ψηφίσασθαι. 106. Ύην μεντοι φυγην άργως ο Κικέρων ^ιηνεγκεν εν Μακεδονία καθήμενος, τω δε Αημοσθενει καί η φυγή μέγα μέρος της πολιτείας γεγονε, "Συναγωνιζόμενος γαρ, ωσπερ είρηται, τοΐς "Ελλι^σι καί τους Μακεδόνων 1 See §§ 25. 28. 70. PLUTARCH'S LIFE OF CICERO 115 πρ€σβ€ΐ% iieXavvoiv €Ίτηρ\€Τ0 τάς ttoXcis, ττολύ βέΚτίων ®€μ.ιστοκλ€ον^ και *Αλκι)3ιάδου παρά ras αΰτα? τνχας φανείς ττολίτης ' καΐ μεντοι κατελθων avOts ίαντον €ΤΓ€^ωκ€ν cts την αντην ταυτην πολιτείαν καϊ δΐ£Τ€λ£ΐ πολεμ,ων ττρός Άντίττατρον καΐ Μακεδόνας. 107. Κίκ^ωνα δ* ώνειδισεν cv τ-β βονλ-β Λαιλιος αΐτονμ,ενον Καίσα- ρος virarctav μετιενοΛ παρά νόμον^ ονιτω γενειώντος, σίωττβ καθημ,ενον. *Ε γράφε δε και Βρούτος^ εγκαλών ώς μείζονα καϊ βαρντεραν πεπαιδοτρι)3ι;κότι τυραννία τη^ νφ αντον καταλνθείση^, 108. V. Έπι πασι δε τ^ς τελεντης τον μεν οίκτείραι rts αν, άνδρα πρεσβντην Βι άγεννειαν υπο οικετών ανω και κάτω περιφερόμ.ενον και περιφενγοντα τον θάνατον καϊ άττοκρντΓτόμενον τους ου πολύ προ τ^ς φύσεως ηκοντας Ιπ αυτόν, ε?τ' άποσφαγέντα • ^ του δ', ει καΐ μικρά προς την Ικετείαν ενεδωκεν, αγαστή μ,εν ι/ παρασκευή του φαρμάκου καϊ τηρησις^ αγαστή δ ^ XPV^i-^f οτί του θεού μη παράσχοντος αυτω την άσυλάιν, ώσπερ επΙ μείζονα βωμον καταφυγών^ εκ των δπλων καϊ των δορυφόρων λαβών εαυτόν iux